Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be ...started CK Kroll & Associates, Inc. to provide technical assistance and consulting on early childhood initiatives ... [email protected]

ED 450 871

AUTHORTITLE

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

PS 028 612

Kroll, Carolyn K.; Rivest, MicheleSharing the Stories: Lessons Learned from 5 Years of SmartStart.David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Los Altos, CA.; SmithRichardson Foundation, Inc., Greensboro, NC.2000-00-0075p.CK Kroll & Associates, Inc., 921 Morreene Road, Suite 205,Durham, NC 27705-4478; Tel: 919-309-4835; Fax: 919-309-4845;e-mail: [email protected] ($5, plus shipping).Reports Descriptive (141)MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.Administrators; *Community Programs; Early ChildhoodEducation; *Early Intervention; Leadership; Marketing;Organizational Development; Program Administration; ProgramDescriptions; Program Development; Program Evaluation;Program Implementation; Public Opinion*Anecdotes; Public Awareness; *Smart Start NC

Launched in 1994, Smart Start is the statewide earlychildhood initiative in North Carolina designed to ensure that every child"arrives at school healthy and ready to succeed." This guide provides apractical reference to the lessons learned from Smart Start as the programwas developed and experienced from -the local county partnership perspective.The guide documents program implementation at the local level during itsfirst 5 years. Information for the guide was gathered from surveys,interviews, and focus groups of Smart Start executive directors. Experiencesof local leaders are presented in the form of stories and "lessons learned"that are organized around the major challenges facing each local partnershiporganization. These challenges include board leadership, planning, servicesdevelopment, organizational development, community collaboration, resourcedevelopment, evaluation, communications, and public awareness. Each chapterin the guide focuses on one of these themes and contains backgroundinformation on state policy and practice before highlighting the localperspective. Brief case studies are included within each topic. The chaptersconclude with a set of key lessons for each topic. The guide concludes byconsidering Smart Start's future as North Carolina's political leadershipchanges, how Smart Start fits in with other early childhood issues in thestate, local implementation of the initiative, and how the program is likelyto change. (KB)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

Lessons Learned

104

1

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

co..sc 0 \ LynKx-0

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

aughorog

aroilY11%

Edealle EweKro

r2 11BEST COPY AVAILABLE

odes

Authors:

Carolyn K. KrollMichele Rivest

3 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

About the Authors

Carolyn K. Kroll served as Executive Director ofDurham's Partnership for Children, the nonprofit estab-lished to administer an annual Smart Start grant inDurham County, from its inception in 1994. Beforecoming to North Carolina, Carolyn was a manager atWork/Family Directions, the Boston-based national con-sulting firm that assists major corporations with work-lifeissues. In addition, she has served as a county managerand a legislative aide in Massachusetts. In 1998, shestarted CK Kroll & Associates, Inc. to provide technicalassistance and consulting on early childhood initiativesand organizational development. Carolyn has a journal-ism degree from Northwestern University and a graduatedegree in creative writing.

© 2000 Early Childhood Initiatives in North Carolina.Permission to copy, disseminate or otherwise use all orany part of this guidebook is granted as long as appro-priate acknowledgement is given.

The contents of this publication are solely the respon-sibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect theopinion of the fenders.

To obtain additional copies or inquire about this pub-lication, contact CK Kroll & Associates, Inc., 1009Monmouth Avenue, Durham, NC 27701 or [email protected].

Michele Rivest has been, since 1994, the ExecutiveDirector of the Orange County Partnership for YoungChildren, a nonprofit agency that is implementing SmartStart in the county. Prior to this, Michele was the Vice-President for Programs at the N.C. Child AdvocacyInstitute in Raleigh where she was responsible for policyand program activities. While at the Institute, Michelewas part of Governor Hunt's transition team on earlychildhood education that designed the Smart Start initia-tive. Michele is the former director of the Children andYouth Program of the National Conference of StateLegislatures, a national organization serving all 50 states.She earned a master's degree in public policy from theUniversity of Colorado.

Table of Contents

iv Foreword

vi Acknowledgements

viii introduction

1 Overview of Smart Start

7 Lesson 1:

Leadership Makes it Happen

17 Lesson 2:Plan Before You Spend

25 Lesson 3:

Build the Local Organization

31 Lesson 4:

Collaboration is Crucial

39 Lesson 5:

Encourage Public-Private Partnerships

45 Lesson 6:

Create Comprehensive Early Childhood Services

53 Lesson 7:

Measure for Success from the Start

59 Lesson 8:

Marketing is a Must

65 Conclusion

5iii

ForewordBy Richard M. Clifford, Ph.D.

To understand how Smart Start happened in NorthCarolinaand why it happened in the 1990swe need toconsider the factors that fostered its creation. The 1980swere difficult years for young children and their familiesin the United States. Individual incomes were stagnant.For men just entering the workforce, the average hourlywage adjusted for inflation actually decreased. Also, theproportion of families headed by single adults increased.So it was harder for families to get started earning a livingand harder for them to keep up with costs.

These factors reinforced the trend of women entering orre-entering the workforce when their children were young.In fact, by the end of the 1980s, fully half of all womenwho had given birth to children in the previous 12months were in the workforce. Increasingly, these familiesturned to other adults to help rear their children. Moreand more, they relied on child care centers and homes.

While these trends affected the whole nation, NorthCarolina faced a particularly difficult situation, with oneof the highest percentages of working mothers and one ofthe lowest average wage rankings. This meant that typicalfamilies were especially hard pressed to afford high quali-ty services. Many of them needed assistance to pay foreven the most basic early childhood services.

Policy makers responded by reducing state regulations onchild care centers serving state-subsidized families, so thatthey could stretch the limited funds across more people.As was true in most states, there was little increase inchild care subsidies for low- and moderate-income fami-lies until the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1989, federallegislation was passed acknowledgingat the nationallevelthat the government needed to find ways to meetthe needs of these families. The resulting Act for BetterChild Care increased the funds available for child caresubsidies and provided new regulations aimed at making

iv

subsidy payments related to the actual cost of providingchild care in states. While the legislation fell far short ofmeeting all the needs, it heralded a first step.

In late 1992, when Governor-elect Hunt announced hisplans for a new early childhood initiative for NorthCarolina, it was the chance of a lifetime for many of us toaddress the complex issues of raising the quality, availabil-ity and affordability of early childhood services. We hadknown that the people of North Carolina wanted to tack-le these issues, but we lacked the driving force to getstarted. In the very best tradition of our democracy, theGovernor saw the need and the will of the people andprovided the missing leadership.

As plans for the Smart Start initiative took shape, webegan to visualize the rough outlines of a program thatwould improve services for our youngest citizens and theirfamilies. We felt a sense of excitement and urgency to getthis program up and running, while we had the interest ofthe Governor and key legislators. Looking back, I thinkwe were pushed by the sense that we had only two ormaybe three years to accomplish all that was needed.

Fortunately, the Governor ran the initiative as a continu-ing campaign. He talked about Smart Start in nearlyevery speech he gave over his full four-year term, evencontinuing the theme in his next campaign. As of thiswriting, he has held firm to his original commitmentmade some eight years ago. North Carolina is now seenas one of the leading states in the nation in early child-hood care and education. While we still have a long wayto go to handle all the complexities implicit in serving abroad array of family needs, Smart Start is a pioneer indiscovering solutions.

At root, the initiative seeks to build an infrastructure tosupport community-based early childhood services and to

use that infrastructure to improve services for all childrenprior to entry into kindergarten. The goal is for all chil-dren to come to school healthy and ready to succeed.

From the beginning, Smart Start focused on building asystem of early childhood services with decisions made atthe local level. To date, more than 80 local Partnershipshave been created as private nonprofit organizations toplan and coordinate services for young children in all 100counties of North Carolina. Their task has been to helpcoordinate the more than 10,000 statewide child carecenters, Head Start programs, family child care homes,school-based services for pre-kindergarten, programs forchildren with disabilities, family support programs andproviders of health services. In so doing, the localPartnerships have involved literally thousands of citizensfrom all walks of life in making decisions about how tobest provide services in their own communities.

For me personally, it has been a real honor to work withthe parents, community and business leaders and earlychildhood professionals who have created a new set ofopportunities for children and families in NorthCarolina. What we had once seen as a time-limited initia-tive has turned out to be the beginning of a decades-long

crusade to create a comprehensive system of services foryoung children and their families.

We are still in the middle of creating that systemandthere is much left to do. To this day, the heart and soul ofthe work takes place at the local level. This book tellsthe story of Smart Start from the perspective of thoselocal people who bring the program to life.

Dr. Richard M. Clifford is a Senior Investigator at the Frank PorterGraham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Dick served as one of the early leaders and developersof the Smart Start initiative and as the first Director of theDivision of Child Development (DCD) within the North CarolinaDepartment of Human Resources. This state agency, later re-named the N.C. Department of Health & Human Services, heldthe responsibility for implementation of the Smart Start legislationadopted in 1993. Dick was involved with Smart Start from dayone and graciously agreed to work with the authors on this publi-cation. He provided insight and guidance to our look at SmartStart from the local perspective.

7v

Acknowledgements

The authors would especially like to recognize the enor-mous contribution that Governor James B. Hunt hasmade to young children and families. He believed in thepower of each local community to decide what is best forits children. Because of his steadfast vision and leader-ship, Smart Start has now become a statewide reality inall 100 counties of North Carolina.

The authors are indebted to all of the executive directorsof local Partnerships who shared the stories and experi-ences that are at the heart of this book. We sincerelythank all our Smart Start colleagues and friends for theirtime and their talents. Every Smart Start Partnership wasmailed a written survey and we thank all those who sentus back the completed form. We integrated much of thesurvey information into "lessons" shared in this book.

We especially thank these executive directors who satdown with us for an interview. They are: Michelle Adkins(former Executive Director in Mecklenburg County),Lori Bates (Brunswick County), Ron Bradford(Buncombe County), Carol Coulter (Ashe County),Dean Clifford (Forsyth County), Jayne Davis (NewHanover County), Angela Deal (Burke County), AnnFaircloth (formerly in Hertford County and now inDuplin County), Jim Glasson (Albermarle Partnership),Sharon Lord (formerly in Jones County), JennyMegginson (Chatham County), Loretta Michael (DareCounty), June Smith (Region A), and Henrietta Zalkind(Nash-Edgecombe Counties).

We also thank the following executive directors from Year5 counties who participated in a focus group held at theTrinity Center in Salter Path, NC. They are: SandraHudspeth (Caswell County), Holly Ann Rogers (HarnettCounty), Kelly Robins (Onslow County), MichaelPhillips (Richmond County), Neal Hardison (Sampson

vi

County), Mary Ann Rasberry (Union County), andDwight Morris (Yadkin County).

We also benefited from the perspectives of several stateleaders, including Stephanie Fanjul (Director of theDivision of Child Development), Pauline McKee(Partners In Innovation), Karen Ponder (ExecutiveDirector of the North Carolina Partnership for Children),and John Ott (Partners In Innovation). Another stateleader, Dr. Richard Clifford, was instrumental in helpingus understand the early development of Smart Start.

The research and writing of this publication would nothave been possible without a grant from the SmithRichardson Foundation. We are especially grateful toAdele Richardson Ray for her early interest in this projectand to Phoebe Cottingham, Program Director at theSmith Richardson Foundation in Westport, Connecticut.

The production, printing and distribution of this bookhas been made possible through a grant from The Davidand Lucile Packard Foundation in Los Altos, California.We especially appreciate the support of Carol Stevensonand Marie Young at the Packard Foundation. Both ofthese foundations were very interested in sharing the les-sons learned in North Carolina with other communitiesand states that might consider similar early childhood ini-tiatives. We hope that this work will indeed prove to beuseful to other pioneers in other places.

Finally, we wish to thank Laura Benedict, Director of theCommunity Facilities Fund at Self-Help in Durham,North Carolina. Laura helped us launch this project withher early encouragement and her management of the fis-cal administration for the grants we received. We arevery appreciative of her interest in this project and thebudgetary help offered by Jim Key at Self-Help.

We extend our appreciation to June Smith and her kit-ten, Luna, for the inspirational setting in June's moun-tain home and much amusement as we began writing thisbook last July. We were reminded each day to take timeto play and to nourish our spirits by walking in themountains of North Carolina and watching an adorablekitten chase her tail. These moments served us well dur-ing the following months of hard work on this project.

do this work. Over and over, we heard executive directorsand leaders involved in Smart Start talk about the visionthey saw for young children in this state and this society.Through this book's reflection on what has happened inthe last five years, we recognize all those who are workingto improve the lives of children and families in this stateand throughout the nation. We hope all of us can takewhat we learn and use it to make an even brighter futurefor all our children.

While traveling all over this state to capture the storiesthat enrich this initiative, we were reminded of why we Carolyn K. Kroll & Michele Rivest

9VII

-Introduction

Writing this book has given us an incredible opportunityto document the first five years of Smart Start, an amaz-ing early childhood initiative in North Carolina, from thepoint of view we know bestthat of executive directors oflocal Partnerships.

In our roles, we were all too familiar with the daily chal-lenges and joys of implementing Smart Start in our owncommunities. We were building new nonprofit organiza-tions, while building community. At the same time, wewere caught up in the activities facing all executive direc-torshiring staff, balancing budgets, communicating ourwork, developing Boards of community volunteers, andfundraising. We also learned about state audits and howto develop impeccable accounting and contracting sys-tems. And we implemented state policy and created ourown policies that later evolved to become state practice.To accomplish this, we worked long hours. But in theprocess, we saw tremendous excitement in our communi-ties as we worked together to create new services andbring together existing services. Both of us witnessedwhat was possible when diverse sectors of our communitycame together in unprecedented ways to envision a futurefor children and Families.

All of this was in the context of launching a revolutionarystatewide initiative for young children. Nothing as com-prehensive as Smart Start had ever been developed inNorth Carolina before. In fact, no state effort had evenbeen instituted to address early childhood education. Wewere pioneers. Each of us was hired as the first executivedirector of our respective Partnership during the first twoyears of Smart Start: in 1994 for Orange County and in1995 for Durham. Many times, when we were frustratedor exhausted, we would say to each other, "If only I hadtime to know what other Partnerships were doing, thenperhaps this would be easier." We knew that what washappening in our communities was taking form and

viii

shape in various ways across the state, yet we didn't havetime to look back or across the state to learn from othersand to share our experiences.

After five years, we discovered a mutual interest in docu-menting these experiences from the local perspective.While others had evaluated the impact on children orgathered data about various aspects of program operation,we wanted to examine the daily life of local Partnershipsand to share the lessons learned from five years of work-ing as executive directors at the community level.

As participant observers, we thought we were uniquelyqualified to do this research and to share this story. Wethought the local Partnerships could best tell their ownstories, in their own voices, and this is the publication weset out to produce. We believe that the lessons learnedby local Partnerships will be valuable, not only as a reflec-tion of what we have experienced, but as a road map forwhere Smart Start is headed. We also thought the lessonslearned here in North Carolina could provide an invalu-able resource to other states and individual communitiesas they shape early childhood education policies for chil-dren and families.

For the most part, this publication is based on the experi-ences of only the first half of Smart Start, thosePartnerships that are commonly referred to as "Years Onethrough Four" which began operating in 1994 -1998."Year Five" Partnerships that began in 1998 are justrecently, in 1999, beginning to implement services intheir own communities. Their story remains to be told,and, undoubtedly, their experiences will reshape andtransform Smart Start and take it to new levels.

To paint as complete a picture as possible, we surveyed allthe local Partnerships to gather their perspectives oncommon areas such as organizational development, Board

10

leadership, program services, communications, andfundraising. We then interviewed 10 executive directorsand six state leaders to gain a deeper understanding. Inselecting this subset of directors and leaders, we tried toachieve balance in two areas: first, we wanted to explorethe diversity of Partnerships in North Carolina; second,we chose those that were in different stages of organiza-tional development.

Then, to determine whether or not we were on the righttrack, we conducted a focus group with seven ''Year Five"executive directors to confirm that the experience of exec-utive directors from previous years would be relevant tothem. A resounding "Yes" encouraged us to continue.

At each stage, we asked, "What lessons have youlearned?" "What would you do differently?" "What hasreally worked?" We are grateful for the collective wisdomof Partnerships across the state for sharing the lessonsthey learned. We rounded out our research with a reviewof all of the major reports and studies that have beenwritten about Smart Start. In the end, we used our ownexperiences to filter what we heard and to shape the focusof this book.

Each chapter, or "lesson," is organized around a majortheme common to local Partnerships. It includes a back-ground section on the issue from both state and local per-spectives, then describes the experiences of localPartnerships in the "local perspective" section. Through"sidebars," we have featured several Partnerships to give

the reader an inside point of view. Together, these chap-ters provide a comprehensive, although not exhaustive,insight into the world of local Partnerships that have beenimplementing Smart Start in North Carolina since 1994.

Dr. Richard M. Clifford, Senior Investigator at theUniversity of North Carolina's Frank Porter Graham

Early Childhood Center, graciously agreed to work withus on this publication. Dick served as one of the earlydevelopers of the Smart Start initiative and as the firstDirector of the Division of Child Development at thestate Department of Health & Human Services that hadresponsibility for implementing Smart Start. Dickreviewed all of the chapters and provided both insightand wisdom as we struggled to give voice to the teachingsfrom the local Partnerships. We value his support andencouragement beyond words.

We hope this publication will be beneficial to those whoare traveling the Smart Start road here in North Carolinaand throughout the country. As a pioneering statewideearly childhood initiative, Smart Start in North Carolinais a rich laboratory of lessons learned. These experiencesin community planning and program developmentrarelyreflected upon in the urgency to serve young childrenand meet the needs of familiescan be invaluable guide-posts as individuals, local communities, and state govern-ments craft future initiatives.

To paraphrase the words of Robert Frost, North Carolinachose to "take the road less traveled" when it set out todevelop a statewide early childhood initiative. On reflec-tion, it has been a journey well worth takingfor us, aswell as for the thousands of young children who are nowhealthy and ready to succeed because Smart Start hasbecome a reality in North Carolina.

Carolyn K. Kroll and Michele Rivest

ix

0 SHARING THE STORIES

One Hundred Counties in North Carolina

22 5 j ii- ''..-1

29 di .37 -1 r42.,) L ,.....2 ...._......._

r--51S 7 1 38:--1 4j)

:12 u,,, , 1 /;24 !, 31 f\f-IA: 2 " ti\ (

//:`-' "`..;--::,-.):..---.:',/ ' J.\ 18-. n' 1'-': /'3 /../ 25 ti0

3

4 76

66if77

99 tl? ?100

86

A84, X927

t,-:\ 16"

Numbers generally run west to east.

North Carolina Counties: by number

1. Cherokee

2. Graham

3. Clay

4. Swain

5. Macon

6. Jackson7. Haywood

8. Transylvania9. Madison

10. Buncombe11. Henderson

12. Yancey13. McDowell

14. Polk

15. Mitchell16. Rutherford17. Avery

18. Burke

19. Cleveland20. Watauga21 Caldwell

22. Ashe23. Wilkes

24. Alexander

25. Catawba26. Lincoln

27. Gaston

28. Alleghany29. Surry

30. Yadkin31. Iredell32. Meckenburg

33. Davie

34. Rowan

x

35. Cabarrus 69. Nash

36. Union 70. Wilson37. Stokes 71. Wayne38. Forsyth 72. Duplin

39. Davidson 73. Pender

40. Stanly 74. Brunswick

41. Anson 75. New Hanover42. Rockingham 76. Halifax

43. Guilford 77. Edgecombe

44. Randolph 78. Greene45. Montgomery 79. Lenoir

46. Richmond 80. Jones47. Caswell 81. Onslow48. Alamance 82. Northampton49. Chatham 83. Hertford

50. Lee 84. Bertie

51. Moore 85. Martin

52. Scotland 86. Pitt53. Hoke 87. Craven54. Robeson 88. Carteret

55. Person 89. Pamlico

56. Orange 90. Gates57. Durham 91. Perquimans

58. Wake 92. Chowan59. Harnett 93. Washington60. Cumberland 94. Beaufort

61. Bladen 95. Hyde

62. Columbus 96. Pasquotank63. Granville 97. Camden64. Vance 98. Currituck

65. Warren 99. Tyrrell

66. Franklin 100. Dare

67. Johnston68. Sampson

59 \ .) 71<

5 51

1r 'P 51V/80

i) 721 46 60 68

if if81

54 r 61 Z,

62 *-91-\,;4'-J--174

North Carolina Counties: alphabetically

Alamance 48 Franklin 66 Pamlico 89

Alexander 24 Gaston 27 Pasquotank 96

Alleghany 28 Gates 90 Pender 73

Anson 41 Graham 2 Perquimans 91

Ashe 22 Granville 63 Person 55

Avery 17 Greene 78 Pitt 86

Beaufort 94 Guilford 43 Polk 14

Bertie 84 Halifax 76 Randolph 44

Bladen 61 Harnett 59 Richmond 46

Brunswick 74 Haywood 7 Robeson 54

Buncombe 10 Henderson 11 Rockingham 42

Burke 18 Hertford 83 Rowan 34

Cabarrus 35 Hoke 53 Rutherford 16

Caldwell 21 Hyde 95 Sampson 68

Camden 97 Iredell 31 Scotland 52

Carteret 88 Jackson 6 Stanly 40

Caswell 47 Johnston 67 Stokes 37

Catawba 25 Jones 80 Surry 29

Chatham 49 Lee 50 Swain 4

Cherokee 1 Lenoir 79 Transylvania 8

Chowan 92 Lincoln 26 Tyrrell 99

Clay 3 McDowell 13 Union 36

Cleveland 19 Macon 5 Vance 64

Columbus 62 Madison 9 Wake 58

Craven 87 Martin 85 Warren 65

Cumberland 60 Meckenburg 32 Washington 93

Currituck 98 Mitchell 15 Watauga 20

Dare 100 Montgomery 45 Wayne 71

Davidson 39 Moore 51 Wilkes 23

Davie 33 Nash 69 Wilson 70

Duplin 72 New Hanover 75 Yadkin 30

Durham 57 Northampton 82 Yancey 12

Edgecombe 77 Onslow 81

Forsyth 38 Orange 56

12BEST COPYAVAILABLE

Overview of Smart Start

We discuss, in this book, the impact of Smart. Starton the local communities that implemented this

early childhood development initiative. For readers notfamiliar with its history and structure, we offer thisoverview in an effort to provide context for the local per-spectives we describe.

Rationale and Vision for Smart Start

The early years of a child's life are now widely regardedby scientists and child development specialists alike as themost critical for school success and adult productivity. Inthis period of early childhoodfrom birth through fiveyearsprofound changes take place in language, socialskills, and cognitive development, particularly when achild's environment is rich with learning opportunities.

Numerous scientific studies in the 1990s confirmed whatparents and other child care givers have intuitivelyknown: the early years from birth through age five are thevital period of brain development. Science confirmed thataffecting a child's potential after these early years is farmore difficultand, in some cases, impossible. Clearly, tohelp children reach their potential, we must start early.

As North Carolina entered the 1990s, the implications ofthe brain research and several other factors gave impetusto the development of an early childhood initiative calledSmart Start, bringing it to the top of the public policyagenda. Concurrently, there was recognition of the need

to improve the state's educational system, which histori-cally ranked near the bottom nationwide in test scores.In addition, there was a longstanding concern about thestate's miserable child care standards, which ranked in thebottom ten states on every indicator of child well-being.

Given these negatives, there was growing awareness in thebusiness community of how vital the public educationsystem is in remaining competitive and supporting boththe current workforce and the future pool of employees.It was clear that the booming economy in NorthCarolina demanded new strategies to sustain its growthand prosperity and to prepare for the future.

As a result of these and other pressures, a new urgency toinvest in early childhood activities to promote optimumlearning and school readiness emerged. Smart Start setout to level the playing field for all children so that everychild reaches the kindergarten door healthy, supportedand ready to learn. Historically, not every child has hadthat chance. Smart Start's vision was to get services andsupport to every child so that it didn't matter whetherthat child lives in a rural or urban area of NorthCarolina, comes from a wealthy home or a poor one, isborn to a teen mom or a married couple, is cared for out-side the home or raised by grandparents. Through SmartStart, all children would have access to the services andresources they need in their early years to enable them torealize their full potential.

13

2 0 SHARING THE STORIES

History and Development of Smart Start

In an attempt to address this situation, Governor JamesB. Hunt, Jr. organized a task force around early child-hood issues before taking office for his third term in1992. Out of these discussions, Smart Start was createdas an early childhood initiative to "ensure that childrenenter school healthy and ready to learn." The authorizingstatute (Article 3 of Chapter 143B), passed in July 1993by the NC General Assembly, was entitled "EarlyChildhood Education And Development Initiatives."

Smart Start was set up as a partnership between the Stateand local communities to create and enhance a statewideinfrastructure of early childhood resources that focus onimproving child care, enhancing preventive child healthservices, and supporting parents in their child-rearingresponsibilities. It was envisioned as a locally drivenmodel, loosely based upon the "re-inventing government"approach, in which higher levels of government establishperformance-based outcomes and then allow local com-munities flexibility and autonomy in devising means toattain them. The 1993 legislation stated, "It is the intentof the General Assembly that communities be given themaximum flexibility and discretion practicable in devel-oping their plans" for young children.

The legislation designated the State's Department ofHuman Resources (NCDHR)now the Department ofHealth & Human Services (DHHS)to administer theSmart Start program and report quarterly on the resultsof the local demonstration projects to the GeneralAssembly through its Joint Legislative Commission onGovernmental Operations. The Department's responsi-bilities included the development of a statewide selectionprocess for the first 12 sites, a needs and resource assess-ment for each of the 100 counties in North Carolina,administration of funds and contracts, and the provisionof technical assistance to those demonstration sites.

A Division of Child Development (DCD) was createdwithin the Department of Human Services to implementthe Smart Start legislation. Dick Clifford, one of the earlySmart Start planning team members, was asked to headthis newly created agency as its first director. With Dickat the helm, the Division would oversee the Smart Startprogram, as well as the state's subsidized child care pro-

gram and other programs serving young children. DCDwrote the regulations, hired program staff, and set up arequest-for-proposals process to select the first 12 demon-stration counties to which Smart Start funds would befunneled.

At the same time, the legislation created a nonprofitorganization, the North Carolina Partnership forChildren, Inc. (NCPC), as the state-level policy cabinetto provide oversight and integration of the local countyPartnerships. It charged NCPC with oversight of 12 localdemonstration projects, with one "pioneer" site to belocated in each of the 12 congressional districts of thestate. DCD and NCPC worked in tandem until 1996when the legislature decided to redefine roles. At thattime, administration of the Smart Start program andresponsibility for technical assistance were transferredfrom the Division of Child Development to the NCPartnership for Children.

The 1993 legislation called for a "local plan (to) addressthe assessed needs of all children to the extent feasible,"but went on to emphasize that "they shall devote anappropriate amount of their State allocations...to meetthe needs of children below poverty and their families." Itdelineated the specific activities and services for whicheach local Smart Start allocation of funds should be usedwithin three broad categories: child care services, family-centered services, and other appropriate services includ-ing health-related and staff/organizational development.The original legislation allowed either existing or newlocal organizations to be Smart Start Partnerships thatwould develop and implement plans to serve childrenand families in their areas. However, one year later, thelegislature mandated that Partnerships had to be new,501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations set up to receive aSmart Start grant.

In the legislation, the aggregate administrative costs tooperate each local nonprofit organization were limited to8% or less of the total Smart Start grants to counties. Bylegislative mandate, all matching support for this public-private initiative from the business community, or privatesector, were required to total 5% of the annual SmartStart allocation. In-kind contributions of space and vol-unteer time were required to account for another 5%each year. Each local Partnership and the North Carolina

14

Lessons Learned from 5 Years of Smart Start 5 3

Partnership for Children are subject to review and auditby the NC State Auditor and required to adopt the OpenMeeting Law and the Public Records Law.

Soon after the legislation passed in 1993, a request-for-applications was sent to the county commission andinteragency coordinating council in each of the 100counties. The application process called for (1) documen-tation of the needs of young children in that county, (2)participation of a diverse group of local leaders from allsectors of the community, and (3) a plan as to how theywould address the needs of young children (birth throughfive) with a comprehensive and collaborative strategy. Allbut six counties responded and 12 pioneer Partnershipswere selected in the first year.

The first 12 programs selected were: Burke, Caldwell,Cleveland, Cumberland, Davidson, Halifax, Hertford,Jones, Mecklenburg, Orange, Stanley, and Region A(comprised of seven counties in the western part of thestateCherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Jackson,Macon, and Swainplus the Qualla Boundary CherokeeIndian Reservation). The pioneer Partnerships represent-ed a cross section of needs and resources, geographicallocations, and all congressional districts.

State legislation required a specific composition for localPartnership Boards that included employees of specificcommunity organizations such as school systems, socialservice agencies, health and mental health agencies, anyuniversity or community colleges, public libraries, countyand city government, as well as low-income parentsreceiving child care subsidies, child care providers, busi-ness leaders, and faith communities.

In the initial administration of funds, Smart Start grantswere made annually to the counties. By April 1st of eachyear, local Partnerships are required to submit a plan forthe use of funds in the next fiscal year, beginning July 1,to the NCPC for review and approval. The Smart Startfunding formula is based on the total cost per county toserve children who are estimated to need subsidized childcare. The components of the funding formula for eachcounty include: total number of children under five yearsof age, number of low income children, the costs of childcare, and the proportion of other available early child-hood funds.

These factors go into a calculation for the full-fundingneed of each county. Depending upon the budget totalpassed by the General Assembly each year, Smart Startcounties receive a percentage of their fully funded needfor that year. Currently, most allocations fall within 20%to 60% of the fully funded need. The local Partnershipsuse the allocation they receive to support the administra-tion of their organization and to make program grants tocommunity-based organizations that directly serve youngchildren and their families.

The 1993-2000 funding figures in the chart below repre-sent the total allotments to local Partnerships only.

Smart Start's Comprehensive Approach

North Carolina has taken a holistic approach to servingthe needs of children through its Smart Start program,recognizing that services must touch all facets of a child'senvironment in the early years. While specific programsdiffer from county to county, Smart Start funds supportlocal programs and services that focus on young childrenin five core categories.

Improving the quality of child care and early child-hood education. Smart Start concentrates on lowchild-to-teacher ratios, size of group, teacher trainingand education, and retention of child care workers.Programs in this category include support for class-room assessments, quality enhancement grants, teachercompensation tied to education, teacher training inCPR, First Aid, and playground safety.

Ensuring that child care and early education areavailable to every child who needs them. The focushere is on programs to address the supply and type ofchild care in a community, or support transportationinitiatives to get children to child care.

Making child care and early education affordableto all families. In 1996, 67% of all women in NorthCarolina worked outside the home. At the same time,the child care cost per child was averaging $400 amonth. Clearly, affordable child care is critical to theeconomic stability of families. In recognition of thisreality, the law requires that a minimum of 30% of alocal Partnership's Smart Start allocation be used toassist, or subsidize, parents with their child care costs.

15


Smart Start Expansion and Funding Chart

Table 1 summarizes the expansion of Smart Start from 1993-2000*

StateFiscal Year

Year GrantMade

# of New

Partnerships

Cumulative #of Partnerships

Cumulatkie #of Counties Served

Annual FiscalBudget Totals

93/94 1 12 12 18 14,453,810

94/95 2 12 24 32 42,442,482

95/96 3 11 35 43 53,580,864

96/97 4 12 47 55 63,618,364

97/98 5 34 81 ** 100 91,865,615

98/99 6 81 100 136,755,828*

99/00 7 81 100 200,535,131*

Budget and county data for 1998/99 and 1999/2000 aretotal statewide allocations, including amounts for bothlocal and state Partnerships.

**Several counties have elected to form one Partnershiptogether on a regional basis serving multiple counties.

These funds supplement other funding streams in thecommunity, particularly federal and state subsidyfunds distributed through local departments of socialservices.

Delivering comprehensive health care and educa-tion to all families and young children. Smart Startfunds for health and safety programs seek to fill gapsin child health care services. This may include theassessment of health care needs in young children,integration of health services in a community, healthand safety consultations to child care programs, orstarting direct health care services when no other serv-ices are available.

Supporting families with needed services.Programs in this area include child care resource andreferral, parent education, comprehensive literacy pro-grams, or family resource centers.

Collaboration and Partnerships Within theCommunity

One of the hallmarks of the Smart Start initiative is itsvision for communities to work together for the future oftheir children. Collaboration was one of the foundingprinciples of Smart Start and has been one of its greateststrengths. The original legislation included funds to pro-vide coaches and training on collaboration to localPartnerships.

Because the original legislation mandated involvementfrom all sectors of the community, all the partners sit atthe Smart Start Board of Directors' table and join togeth-er to make decisions about the limited funds to meettheir community's needs. Partnerships' decisions onfunding often include incentives for local serviceproviders to bring collaborative and innovative approach-es to their proposals. As a result, the emphasis on collabo-ration has improved many relationships among localagencies within a county. Service providers now look forways to coordinate with other agencies in their commu-nity in an effort to make service delivery more "seamless"for families.

Evaluation and Monitoring of Smart Start

The 1993 enabling legislation called for a formative eval-uation on process and efficiency issues, and for a summa-tive evaluation focusing on the ultimate effectiveness andoutcomes produced by the program. A formal, statisticalevaluation of Smart Start is managed by the Frank PorterGraham Center for Child Development at the Universityof North Carolina in Chapel Hill. To date, the UNCSmart Start Evaluation Team at Frank Porter GrahamCenter (FPG) has produced 17 narrative reports on vari-ous aspects of this initiative.

Monitoring of Smart Start occurs in many ways. TheNC State Auditor's Office tracks and conducts extensiveannual audits for each local Partnership and for the state

16

Lessons Learned from 5 Years of Smart Start 0 5

NC Partnership for Children. This work ensures fiscalaccountability for all public and private funds going toSmart Start. The annual audit concentrates on the docu-mentation of all Smart Start dollars administered by thelocal Partnerships, as well as all funds awarded to localcommunity agencies and organizations by the localPartnership Boards for:* services to young children and families,* cash and in-kind donations (including the number ofvolunteer hours), and* all business and other private contributions to the localPartnership.

Contract monitoring occurs at both the state and locallevel with competitive bidding practices, established con-tracting procedures, and requests for funds based uponactual expenditures. Accountability for performance isalso monitored through the annual plan review process;outcome data are reported to the state quarterly.

The NC Partnership also extensively monitors the per-formance of the local Partnerships. It begins with anAnnual Plan that each Partnership is required to submit.This plan details the needs and resources in each countyand describes the various strategies the local Partnershipintends to fund in order to address these needs. The planis then scrutinized by a team of state, agency, and pro-gram experts. Once approved, the local Partnerships mustsubmit quarterly reports and respond to other requests todocument the progress and achievement of program out-comes. Financial reports must be submitted quarterly todocument expenditures of both administrative and servic-es funds in compliance with the approved contract.

Achievements of Smart Start

Smart Start has been recognized nationally for its achieve-ment in significantly improving the early childhood edu-cation system in North Carolina. Among other honors,it has been awarded a two-year grant from the CarnegieCorporation in New York as one of only 16 programsnationwide to be a part of their "Starting Points: Stateand Community Partnerships for Young Children." It hasalso been showcased by the National GovernorsAssociation Center for Best Practices, helping to putNorth Carolina onto the Working Mother's Magazine listof the most innovative states for child care. Smart Startwas even named one of ten national winners of the pres-

tigious Innovations in American Government Awards,sponsored annually by Harvard University's John F.Kennedy School of Government and the FordFoundation.

This widespread recognition of Smart Start's success issupported by the data:

Since 1994, it has increased the number of child carespaces in North Carolina by more than 33,500.

More than 50,000 families who couldn't afford to paythe full cost of care are now receiving subsidies.

More teachers are remaining in classrooms longer toprovide more consistent care because of projects sup-ported by Smart Start.

The quality of child care has increased dramatically asdemonstrated by the 14% increase statewide in thenumber of AA-licensed child care centers from 1993to 1998.

More than 60,000 parents have received parent andhealth education through a variety of Smart Start pro-grams.

More than 97,000 children have been screened at anearlier age to prevent long-term health and develop-mental problems.

Fragmented services for children are being reducedand an infrastructure of services for children and fami-lies is being created in all 100 counties.

As of July 1999, Smart Start has expanded to all 100counties in North Carolina and full funding for all thesecounties is anticipated in the 2000-01 legislation session.The vision that all children will receive early and appro-priate care to help them reach their full potential isbecoming a reality across the state of North Carolina.

Some information in this history and development section was

excerpted from the chapter, "History and Description of SmartStart," in Assessing the Needs and Resources for North Carolina'sSmart Start Population, published by North Carolina ChildAdvocacy Institute on behalf ofand under contract toNorthCarolina Department of Health and Human Services (Division ofChild Development), 1999.

-7 ry1. I


TIMELINE OF MAJOR EVENTS

In Development of Smart Start

o Smart Start created through legislation and administered byNC Department of Human Services, Division of Child Development

03 12 pioneer Partnerships began service delivery in Januaryo Initial funds requested are $20M

11 additional Partnerships beganFunding for collaboration/strategic planning removed from budgetPerformance audit by Coopers & Lybrand calls Smart Start a "credible" programbut recommends significant changes

o 12 additional Partnerships began services delivery

o State administrative functions moved from DHR to NCPCo NC Partnership for Children (NCPC) new responsibilities required by legislature include:

program fiscal agent, contracts management, compliance monitoring, technicalassistance to local Partnerships, meeting cash fundraising requirementsLegislative mandate that 30% of funds subsidize child care subsidies

o Remaining (of 100) counties receive funds for planningDevelopment of Core Services

o Legislative mandate that 70% of funds spent for child care-related activities

o All 100 counties submit plans to implement programs and serviceso Governor requests additional $57M for budget expansion

1999 o Total funding is now $220M statewide per year

000 $300M total funding request now under consideration

18

L S O ON

Leadership Makes it Happen

A'

4 y, 40

The Smart Start model clearly illustrates that, tolaunch an early childhood initiative on a statewide

scope, it is vital and necessary for political will and lead-ership to come from the top. When people from outsidethe state of North Carolina first learn about Smart Start,they invariably remark on the leadership role thatGovernor Jim Hunt has played in its creation andstatewide development. They make comments like,"What a vocal champion for children he is!" "How didyou ever get a politician to speak so eloquently aboutchild care?" "Where did you find a governor to supportan issue so forcefully?"

The truth is, however, that generating political will at thetop levels of government requires grassroots, community-based advocacy to support and inform state-level leader-ship. In North Carolina, such a team of activistsa teamwho had worked for years on the issues facing young chil-dren and their families at the local community levelcametogether to help Governor Hunt craft an early childhoodinitiative. Early in 1991, Hunt drew together a smallgroup of early childhood education researchers, practition-ers, and policymakers to discuss a strategy for his upcom-ing gubernatorial campaign that could address the futureof North Carolina's public education system. These advo-cates educated Hunt on the long-term value of havingevery child reach the kindergarten door ready to succeed

and learn. And, through their efforts during these earlymeetings, the concept for Smart Start was born. In 1992,Hunt was elected to his third term as governor.

The timing to launch such a statewide strategy couldn'thave been better. Although North Carolina's economywas booming in the 1990s, Hunt recognized the growingconcern in the business community that educationofboth today's workforce and its future pool of employ-eeswas key to the state's financial future and its competi-tive stance in a global economy. He learned that NorthCarolina's ranking on education and children's issues wasabysmal, in the bottom tenth of all states. And he real-ized that resources to bolster the care and health of chil-dren early in life were badly needed.

In a previous term as governor, Hunt had established uni-versal kindergarten in North Carolina. From this experi-ence, he had learned two critical things to apply to theSmart Start initiative: first, it needed to be delivered in allcounties and second, it had to produce results immediate-ly in order for the legislature to fund it long-term. So, tobuild local community leadership and buy-in, he promot-ed local decision-making as a hallmark of this initiative.The membership on local Boards was to be drawn fromall segments of a communitybusiness, city and countygovernment, education, religious, and othersso that local

19 7


decisions were made by those closest to the community'sneeds. Hunt's political leadership enabled this innovativeapproach to gain widespread support with the result thatfunds were approved by the state legislature in 1993.

The dual promises of local autonomy and millions ofdollars in public funds were sufficient incentives to bringcommunity leaders together around a common vision forall children. Before Smart Start was created, community-based leadership on early childhood issues was often frag-mented, spread out among child care resource and refer-ral agencies, county government agencies, and certainnonprofit service providers. Moreover, local communityservices often competed against each other for limitedresources to help families, since they lacked the time toeffectively plan and work together with other agencies.

When Smart Start grants to counties became available in1993, community leaders came together to apply forSmart Start funds. As part of the application process,counties had to submit both a needs assessment and aplan for the use of the funds, along with documentationabout how parents, child care providers, and others couldwork together to deliver services to families. Sometimes,community foundations or interagency coordinatingcouncils organized the first community meeting to put anapplication together. In other instances, the coordinationof activities to apply for a Smart Start grant might fall tothe United Way, or to the community foundation in thatcounty, or to an existing local group concerned aboutchildren issues. And, in certain cases, the local commu-nity college or county cooperative extension agency ledthe process. The application phase often set the vision forthat county's use of Smart Start funds and the leadershipto guide the implementation of the grant. As a result,individuals in each county were stepping forward to leadthe community planning process that would result in anapplication for funds.

Turf 'Issues

0 O

Smart Start Partnerships were the "new kids on the block"in comparison to the public agencies and organizationsalready serving children. In each county, departments ofsocial services, health, or mental health had long histories

After a county received a Smart Start grant award, initialplanning yielded to policy-making, as some of thoseinvolved in the application process took seats on thePartnership Board. At this point, then, local leadershipchanged its focus from creating a vision for children tomaking decisions about how to plan for and spend SmartStart funds for specific programs. To accept the receipt ofa Smart Start grant, counties could use either an existingagency or set up a "new" nonprofit organization toimplement the grant. In the second year of Smart Start,however, the NC legislature amended the regulations tomandate that funds be placed with newly established501(c)(3) organization. This meant the set-up and opera-tion of another community organization, the Smart StartPartnership, to heighten the visibility and support ofearly childhood development issues in each county.

The biggest challenge for local leadership was the Boardmake-up mandated in the Smart Start legislation.Unlike most nonprofit boards of directors, membershad to be recruited to fill specifically designed "slots,"or positions, that adhered to the specified representationestablished in the Smart Start legislation. Not only werethese slots required to be filled by local child careproviders and parents of children receiving subsidizedchild care, but by community leaders from business, theschool system, churches, foundations, local hospitals,and local government.

The rationale behind crafting the mandated representa-tion was to foster collaboration and communication bybringing all segments of a county together to make deci-sions for children. However, this mandated board struc-ture also created several barriers to the implementation ofthis initiative. These barriers included turf, conflict ofinterest, and power balance issues and impacted eachlocal Partnership in various ways.

0 s 0 0

of delivering services to young children and families.

Many of these agency directors felt, therefore, that the

public funds going to Smart Start should be poureddirectly into child care subsidy and other programs

already delivered within their departments. Not surpris-

20

ing, United Ways in various counties saw Smart Start as

competition for their fundraising base. And child care

resource and referral agencies that had existed for years

considered Smart Start a threat to their leadership on

child-related issues. These turf issues had to be

addressed, especially in counties like Mecklenburg,

Durham or Orange where strong CCR&R (child care

resource and referral) agencies were established leaders in

their communities and had been working on child care

issues for decades.

With the introduction of Smart Start, all these "turfs"came together: local organizations and agencies placedvoting members on the Smart Start Board and assignedrepresentatives to working groups that made funding rec-ommendations to the Board. Understandably, the out-come was problematic: while these agency leadersbrought greater expertise and experience to PartnershipBoards than some representatives, their impartiality cameinto question. Were they, in fact, placing priority onfunding their own and each other's organizations?Naturally, when service providers discuss topics aboutwhich they are most knowledgeable, they are oftenviewed as advocating their own causes or programs.

Conflict of Interest

Another challenge was maintaining neutrality in a situa-tion in which administrators of funded programs werealso deciding where Smart Start funds should be placed.Conflicts of interest occurred when those Board memberswho were experts in delivering early childhood serviceswere also the logical recipients of Smart Start funds. Thismeant that Board members voting to grant funds to aspecific local program were often the very people incharge of the delivery of services by those same programs.Many saw this as an inherent flaw in the make-up ofSmart Start.

To meet the leadership challenges posed by the mandatedBoard positions, Partnerships took different approaches.Some, like Durham or Forsyth County, adopted policiesrequiring Board members to declare any potential con-flict of interest (e.g., with their employer or their spouse'semployer). Though not legally binding, these policiesusually require Board members to sign agreements thatthey will (a) remove themselves from votes in which a

LESSON 1: Leadership Makes it Happen Ot 9

direct conflict exists, (b) declare their affiliation when inreview of proposals and discussions on funding, and (c)act objectively and in the best interest of the entire com-munity, not just their agency.

Other counties established working groups comprised ofcommunity participants whose mission was to reviewfunding proposals and make recommendations for fund-ing to the Partnership Board for a final vote. To reduce theappearance of conflict of interest, many Partnerships didnot allow Board members with a direct stake in an agencyor program to review a proposal from or vote on fundingfor it. Most Partnerships, however, saw the community's"greater good" as the motivation for all Board membersand relied on members to allocate Smart Start funds tothose programs that met the stated criteria for fundingand would provide the best outcomes for children.

Yet, in spite of the best intentions to serve children withthe greatest needs, some counties struggled with over-whelming conflict of interest and turf issues. InMecklenburg County, for instance, close to 70% of itstotal Smart Start allocation is placed with the county'sdepartment of social services (D.S.S.) to subsidize childcare tuition. And the D.S.S. director was the chairman ofthe Partnership's Board when this decision was made.Understandably, a 1996 Smart Start Performance Auditby the national accounting firm Coopers & Lybrand rec-ognized this ongoing conflict of interest challenge forlocal Partnerships. Throughout its development, SmartStart at the local and state level has struggled to be trueto collaboration while avoiding conflict of interest issues.Only recently, in 1998, did the state legislature relax itsmandate for the makeup of Partnership Boards andremove the legislative requirement that a set number ofelected state senators and representatives sit on the statePartnership's Board. However, a representative from thelocal Board of county commissioners still remains a man-dated seat on a local Partnership's Board.

Turnover

These mandated slots on a Board did not always includecommunity members who had initially been heavilyinvolved in creating the vision during the applicationprocess. Once a nonprofit Partnership was established,the leadership shifted to Board members who were publicgovernment agency directors or recipients of public


funds. So, as the focus turned away from planning thevision for children and toward placing funds to imple-ment local programs, some Board members who hadbeen invested in the early planning process drifted away.

Then, because the transition from coordinating planningactivities to handling administrative and operationaldetails was sometimes difficult, it led to further Boardturnover. In addition, the process of hiring an executivedirector often took six to eight months after the receipt ofthe grant, which meant that Board members had to keepthe organization going by performing budgetary and pro-gram development duties. So when an executive directorwas hired, Board members had to shift their focus yetagain from administration to policy development.

Balance of Power and Non-TraditionalStakeholders

Due to the mandated makeup of a Board, public agencyrepresentatives often formed a significant voting block onthe local Partnerships' Boards. In fact, eight of the 18mandated slots had to be filled with people eitheremployed by, or elected to, positions in county govern-ment. This created a dilemma both for those serving onthe Board and those making recommendations to theBoard. Parents, child care providers, and business repre-sentatives do not bring the same style of leadership, or anequal voice, to Board discussions as do public officialswho are either elected or appointed and familiar withoperating in a political environment. While many Boardmembers were agency directors who served as staff totheir own Boards, still otherslike the superintendent ofschools or a university presidenthad a high degree ofboard experience gained from serving on corporate,chamber of commerce, or hospital boards.

In addition, such "nontraditional stakeholders" as parentsof children receiving child care subsidies were required bylegislation to be on Partnership Boards. Yet their involve-ment in long nightly meetings, their experience in debat-ing policy issues, and their skill to give voice to their chil-dren's needs were often limited. One parent expressed herfear when first sitting next to the county director of socialservices. "This was the man that I saw as the cause of allmy problems and frustrations when I went to the D.S.S.agency. He had the power to take my kids from my home

and to withhold the child care stipend I depended upon."On the other hand, hearing what that parent had to sayas a consumer of public services was very important tothe collaborative vision of Smart Start and to addressingthe needs of a community's children. Most local Boards,like Durham's Partnership for Children, established a pol-icy to reimburse the child care and transportation costs oflow-income parents to allow them to attend meetings.

An added pressure exists when decisions are made aboutlimited resources and Board members have to choosebetween funding new programs, continuing existing pro-grams, and funding only programs that have demonstrat-ed positive results. Board members face yet anotherdilemma when, by consensus, they have to decide not tofund certain agencies who sit on the Board. As one per-son noted, "We analyze proposals for Smart Start fundingmore critically when potential recipients of funding arenot sitting in the room and tend to be more silent whenpotential funding recipients are there to voice support."

Role of Executive Director and Staff asLeaders

The relationship between an executive director and theBoard is a key leadership issue. Successful executive direc-tors need to be multi-faceted to launch new organizationsand build the organizational infrastructure to handle alarge allocation of state dollars.

Some executive directors arose out of the grant applica-tion process where their leadership in the community wasapparent. Their work in meetings to coordinate the appli-cation data resulted in close relationships with other lead-ers in the community who ended up taking seats on thePartnership Board when the grant was received. As onelocal executive director put it, "One of the greatest chal-lenges for an ED is that I am both colleague and supervi-sor of members of my Board. I have been a communityactivist and worked with and against some of my Boardmembers on various issues in the past. I am both thesupervised and the supervisor and sometimes it results inawkward relationships."

Some Smart Start Boards looked for executive directorswith experience in early childhood programs; others hiredbased on previous management experience with fiscal and

22

administrative skills. Occasionally, Boards found both pro-gram development and organizational management skillsin one person. Strong community ties and managementability were equally important in making the collaborationprocess run smoothly. Often, a strong executive directorspent most of the time facilitating the group interaction ofa board, in order to achieve successful collaboration.

Metropolitan counties that already had established infra-structures of services for children often needed executivedirectors who were strong administrators to establish avisible Smart Start presence. Rural counties, with lessservice infrastructure, often hired directors who couldshoulder the whole load of developing and implementingprograms, as well as building and maintaining what wasoften the only organization in that county with anyresources to serve young children. Executive directors alsoprovided leadership at the state level by bringing a localperspective to the decisions being made by the NorthCarolina Partnership for Children and the Division ofChild Development. At one point, local Partnership exec-utive directors formed a statewide association to bringsuggestions on program and policy issues to the statePartnership's Board.

Board Leadership

One question posed frequently by Board members was"What role should I play?" Those members who servedon the application committee to get Smart Start funds, forexample, had taken responsibility for the day-to-day tasksinvolved in coordinating meetings, collecting information,and writing a grant. As a result, they were familiar withthe administration of the organization long before theBoard hired an executive director. So they had specialexpertise to offer from an administrative perspective.

Other Board members saw their role as spokesperson andpublic relations manager. Still others felt they served inthe standard Board member role of reviewing policy andauthorizing budgets. And those members who worked onthe frontlines of child care were used to program develop-ment; they felt their role was less policy, more specificprogram review and coordination.

LESSON 1: Leadership Makes it Happen 11

Given the diversity of Board member backgrounds,development and training exercises were generallyacknowledged to be a good idea. However, since hiringan executive director and staff, creating a strategic plan,and formulating a budget were a first priority, this train-ing was pushed to the back burner. Timing pressureswere one reason. Upon first receipt of state funds, a newPartnership had to expend those funds in their countywithin a six- to eight-month period. And programreview and funding decisions to meet this deadline tookinordinate chunks of a Board member's time. As a result,leadership training, team building, and defining roleswere not often a priority for Smart Start Boards.

Beyond timing pressures, there were other obstacles toscheduling training. One of these was perception.Resources for planning and Board development were notalways seen as an expense a local organization couldafford. One reason: spending tax dollars for activities notbelieved to have a direct impact on young children wasconsidered suspect. Another obstacle was financial. Inthe early years of Smart Start, collaboration training wasfunded for all Partnerships as an attempt by state leadersto build team leadership and a shared vision at the locallevel. However, after the first two years, it fell to the localorganizations to find the time and money to do theirown training.

Regardless of these pressures, many Boards did findboth the time and resources to offer training, usually inhalf-day or weekend retreats. For them, the value ofgetting togetheraway from their normal environ-mentwas significant.

And with or without training, involvement in a collabo-rative environment also had significant benefits.Community leaders serving on Partnership Boards gaineda broader perspective of the value of local services.School officials sitting at the table, for example, saw howchildren coming into kindergarten were clearly impactedby the programs that D.S.S. or the preschools provided.By working together to address and plan issues for chil-dren in their communities, they saw how much they hadin common.

23


Local organizations need champions at both stateand local levels who can lead effectively.The importance of board chemistry and ongoingboard development activities cannot be overstated. Aninitiative based on local autonomy needs clear policydirection from the state level to be successful.

Initiative needs to be rooted locally to createinvolvement from diverse sectors of the community.Before Smart Start, there was little interagency collab-oration or communication; each local agency focusedon serving its defined population with no knowledgeof what the other social service agencies were doing.The ripple effect from crafting this initiative locallyhas been widespread. It has fostered an impressivegroundswell of commitment and involvement in earlychildhood issues in every community across this statebecause communities feel ownership of it.

Conflict of interest is an issue that will occur iflocal agency representation is at the Board table. Itneeds to be managed from the beginning.

The mandated composition of the local Smart StartBoards fosters collaboration, but also means thatmembers voting to grant funds to a specific local pro-gram are often the very people in charge of the deliv-ery of services by those same programs.

A strong executive director is vital to the success ofSmart Start.Strong executive directors are strong communicators,possess a high degree of authority, and have a clear vision

for Smart Start in their communities. Strong communityties and management ability, along with a facility for

enabling the collaboration procecs to run smoothly, are

necessary to run a Partnership successfully.

New styles of community leadership are key fromlocal individual champions, not just organizations.Just as community environments, cultures, and needsvary throughout the state, leadership styles must varyaccording to the needs of specific communities. The"one size does not fit all" model must be valued andrecognized in any statewide initiative.

A STORY FROM ASHE COUNTY

What are the key ingredients of an effective Smart Start

Board? Carol Coulter, the Executive Director of the

Ashe County Partnership for Children, believes the recipe

calls for a strong Board chair who is committed to facil-

itating a collaborative planning process and a shared

belief that "everybody has something to offer." The

Ashe County Partnership Board, recognized with the

Smart Start Award for Collaboration in 1996, exemplifies

this kind of leadership and its value to a community.

Ashe County is a small, rural county located in the

northwestern corner of North Carolina. It is an area

with little industry, no United Way agency, and a total

population of just over 23,000 people, including 1,365

preschool children. Children and families spend their

time in schools or church-related activities, because

there is no YMCA or similar community-gathering place.

People tend to live here because they love the moun-

tains and a sense of community. And they remain in

the county for a lifetime; job turnover is low. Many of

the Board members have been in their jobs for many

years and have developed considerable expertise and

confidence in their fields.

Even before the county received a Smart Start grant, a

"collaborative spirit" existed. As is the case in rural

towns with small populations, there was a history of

working together with the same people rotating on and

off various community boards. The. Smart Start Board

came together under the early leadership provided by

the county cooperative extension office, with Julie

Landry as the first Board chair. Under her leadership,

the Partnership crafted its original mission "to build

partnerships between parents and organizations and

24

LESSON 1: Leadership Makes it Happen 13

mobilize public and private community resources in

order to help strengthen children and families."

The Board enthusiastically engaged in the Collaboration

Training offered by the Division of Child Development in

the early years of Smart Start and then went on to

group training in the Covey Method. Out of these expe-

riences, the Board came to appreciate what each part-

nering agency could bring to the table. It recognized

that not everyone had equal resources and that dollars

weren't necessarily the only contribution to be made.

Regardless of whether it was money or creative ideas,

the Board viewed each member as bringing added value

to the Smart Start process. From the beginning, the

Board broadly defined its target group as all children,

not just young children ages 0-5, to ensure that all

sectors of the community could be part of this team.

The Board members worked together a full year before

hiring an executive director. This period allowed them

to take full ownership for the services it developed and

to carefully consider its role within the community in

the development of more effective services. Under the

Boards' leadership, the Ashe County Partnership has

come to be viewed as the service hub in the county.

That means the Partnership itself provides some direct

services, such as the Family Resource Center, although

many agencies contribute different types of activities

for children and families. It also agreed to serve as the

site for programs being implemented by other agencies,

including the child care referral and subsidy programs,

which are activities of the local social services depart-

Business Leader

ment. According to Coulter, one of the hallmarks of the

Partnership is that it offers a warm and inviting family-

friendly space and great hospitality to which consumers

come for services.

It's this kind of community spirit that inspired the lat-

est collaborative vision of the Partnership. At the

request of the Partnership Board, the community

secured the rights to a 52,000-square-foot school build-

ing that the county commissioners had voted to retire

from use by the school system. The Board has agreed to

serve as the lead for a capital campaign to refurbish

this building to accommodate ten different community

service agencies in the new space. With support from a

private foundation, the Partnership will soon hire a

shared resource developer to manage the campaign for

all of the partnering community agencies.

After four years, although Board chairs have changed,

the core of the original Smart Start Board remains as

actively involved as it has ever been. This collaborative

leadership team has accomplished some remarkable

results in just four years. For example, all new parents

receive a home visit within four weeks of the birth of

their child, childhood immunizations are now obtained

on time for over 95% of the children entering school,

and every preschool teacher has achieved preschool

teaching certification. The Partnership's budget for

funding has grown beyond its Smart Start grant alloca-

tion with more than 40% of its revenue coming from

other sources. This is a true test of its collaborative

approach and mission.

A STORY FROM BUNCOMBE AND ROBESON COUNTIES

Just as Smart Start had an invaluable champion at the

state level in North Carolina's Governor Hunt, it also had

countless advocates at the community level. "Every

cause, every community, every child deserves a champi-

on," according to the Buncombe County Partnership for

Children's nomination form for the Local Champion Award

presented each year. The Smart Start initiative has many

such supporters in various counties across the state.

Almost every local Partnership can point to a pivotal

person who used vision and hard work in getting that

first Smart Start grant, or setting up a new nonprofit

organization, or starting a new program. Highlighted

here are just two examples of local leadership: one of a

25 BEST COPY AVAILABLE


businessman and one of a community activist.

According to the LoEal Champion Award nominating

him, Charles D. Owen, III "tirelessly and diligently pur-

sued, persuaded and persevered to ensure that Smart

Start would happen for Buncombe County. He

unabashedly parlayed his stature in the community,

region, and state on behalf of young children."1

As a highly respected corporate executive of one of

western North Carolina's major employers-as well as a

dedicated volunteer and a fervent child advocate-

Charlie Owens inspired many other business and civic

leaders to take up the cause of their county's youngest

citizens. Through his dedication and integrity, he sig-

naled to taxpayers, legislators, and other leaders that

Smart Start would be a positive, community-enriching

opportunity.

From the beginning, when Smart Start was just in the

planning stages at the state level, Charlie saw the

potential for an effective partnership between the State

government and local communities to fund locally guid-

ed grassroots programs. Demonstrating his commit-

ment, he made the five-hour drive to the state capital

in Raleigh several times, all the way from the city of

Asheville in the mountains of western North Carolina.

During these trips and in countless phone calls, he

worked to educate, motivate, and persuade legislators

of the unquestionable need for Smart Start. Many peo-

ple believe that Charlie's unflagging passion in the

value of quality early childhood education made a dif-

ference to a reluctant General Assembly when the origi-

nal Smart Start legislation was on the brink of defeat.

During the Buncombe Partnership's inaugural years,

Charlie was its Chairman. With his unmatched enthusi-

asm, he worked with the Nominating Committee to

build a Board of Directors that combined the diverse

interests of the region-from legislators to legal servic-

es, from parents to providers, from advocates to agen-

cies. He gave the Partnership an amazing amount of

energy, while engaged in an array of other responsibili-

ties as Chair of the United Way Board of Directors,

President and owner of a major industry, devoted hus-

band, and committed father. When business sent him

all over the United States and world, thereby making it

impossible for him to attend the three, four, or even

six Smart Start meetings a week, he stayed in touch

with key players by phone, often calling from airports

on the run.

After the Buncombe Partnership received a Smart Start

grant, Charlie was a hands-on Chairman. He worked on

committees, recruited executive staff, gave speeches,

reviewed proposal bid packages, refereed Board battles,

and made TV appearances.

Charlie even sponsors an annual award for child care

providers in the community, who are touched by his

personal investment in their profession. In addition,

Charlie served on the Board of Directors of the

Swannanoa Valley Voices for Children as they worked to

build and operate a model child care center. And he

reaffirmed his commitment to child care and to his

employees by pledging a large gift to the center's cam-

paign. Through the gift from his company, Owen's

Manufacturing, he ensured that his employees' children

would have access to quality child care close to the

plant where their parents work.

His personal influence on strategic planning, allocation

of funds, and program development committees is still

felt four years after Buncombe's inception. It's not an

exaggeration to say that his intuition, political skills,

common sense, clear thinking and ability to accomplish

a new and daunting task are unparalleled. And his lead-

ership and talents were instrumental in the building of

a strong foundation for a successful nonprofit organiza-

tion that is now an important resource for young chil-

dren in the area.

Volunteer Leader

Across the state from the North Carolina mountains lies

Robeson County, a diverse area represented by three

major populations: American Indians, African-

Americans, and whites. With little major industry to

support the economy, these populations co-exist

uneasily. In 1995, a group of leaders in Robeson

26

LESSON 1: Leadership Makes it Happen r 15

County came together to talk about the future of their

community. Fordham Britt was a member of thisgroup.2

Even before Smart Start began as a state initiative,Fordham was a leading community activist, having

planned a KIDS COUNT conference to launch an intenseeffort to assess, plan, and provide services for this

county's young children. Through the KIDS COUNT

assessment process, the community identified areas

where more support services for children and families

were desperately needed. Fordham spent countless

hours attending planning meetings in the county, as

well as meetings across the stateadvocating for Smart

Start and bringing important information back to

Robeson County. Once the state legislation was

approved, she assembled a planning team and organ-

ized a countywide effort to apply for a Smart Startgrant.

Unfortunately, Robeson County's application for SmartStart was not selected in the first round of funding; it

was even denied a second time. While many wanted to

give up after these two defeats, Fordham Britt took this

as an opportunity to bring fresh faces to the table and

solicit new perspectives to address the issues. Her

advocacy helped secure foundation grants to get several

programs off the ground without Smart Start. For

instance, she was instrumental in bringing child care

resource and referral services to Robeson County. And

she obtained a Duke Endowment grant to bring 'a par-enting program to families in the outlying areas of thecounty where child abuse and neglect rates were espe-cially high. She even went so far as to lead a planningteam to establish a Board of Directors and form a non-profit organization to create a comprehensive plan for

young children and their families. This plan eventually

became the Smart Start application that was successful-

ly funded in the third round of Smart Start grants.

For two years, Fordham served as Chair of the Robeson

County Partnership for Children Board of Directors. No

longer a Smart Start Board member, Fordham currentlycontinues her efforts and legacy of hard work in many

ways. In 1998, for instance, she served on the

Governor's Summit. And she has served as an advisoryboard member for such organizations as Families andChildren of the 7th Congressional District, the Pines ofCarolina Girl Scout Council, Robeson County Group

Home, Robeson County Child Advocacy Center,

Leadership North Carolina, and Volunteer Families forChildren.

Recently, Fordham brought the nationally recognized

Healthy Steps program to Robeson County. Sponsored

by Smart Start and the Lumberton Children's Clinic inRobeson County, Healthy Steps uses enhanced pediatric

well child care to encourage mothers and fathers to beinformed and recognize ways to optimize their chil-dren's healthy growth and development. She continuesher tireless efforts on behalf of the children and fami-lies of Robeson County.

Fordham is one of many visionary citizens around thestate who took on enormous challenges, faced countless

obstacles, and persevered to make a significant differ-ence to the children of North Carolina and her county.

1 Information on Charles D. Owens III excerpted from 1998 SmartStart Local Champion Award nomination submitted by

Buncombe County Partnership for Children, Ron Bradford,

Executive Director.

2 Information on Fordham Britt excerpted from 1998 Smart Start

Local Champion Award nomination submitted by Robeson

County Partnership for Children, Jane lie Nesbit, Executive

Director.

BEST COPY AVAll ABLE

27

L S O ON

Plan Before You Spend

I, S. z. §x

P .

4Y,C 4 0 11" 's 4 6.{,RV.A,.6, 7*0e0 ° 6 'S s, 'see

(4, te 222 9'21 22 2 2 +2

,2 2 2 1222 2 21 7229 e < saw

The early developers of Smart Start envisioned theinitiative as a means to create large-scale community

change focused on young children and families. Thevision was to build the capacity of communities, throughcollaboration, to act on their own behalfas long as theimpact was on families and children. Crafted as a "bot-tom-up" approach to government, Smart Start initiallyset out to foster local decision-making and help commu-nities come together to meet the needs of young childrenand their families.

According to the original 1993 Smart Start legislation,guidelines about the usage of Smart Start funds wereminimal to be sure that local counties had "the maxi-mum flexibility and discretion practicable in developingtheir plans" for young children. While it did not delin-eate the specific activities and services for which eachlocal allocation should be used, it did say that fundedactivities had to fall within three broad categories: childcare services, family-centered services, and other appro-priate services including health-related and staff/organiza-tional development.

Each county's core planning team was to be the localPartnership Board of Directors, with a specific composi-tion of members as defined in the legislation. This man-dated team offered unprecedented opportunity to bring

together elected officials; directors of human servicesagencies; public school, university and business leaders;providers of child care; low-income parents who wereworking or receiving child care subsidies; clergy; healthprofessionals; and volunteers involved in early childhoodactivities. With these key players at the table, Smart Startdesigners believed that collaborative relationships couldbe fostered and priorities set for that community.

As local Partnership organizations began to operate, theyfaced different sets of challenges, often based on their ori-gins. Some Partnerships, for example, were "the new kidon the block" with no track record as nonprofit organiza-tions. Other Partnerships arose out of already existingclusters of community members or programs that hadbeen addressing children's issues in that county. Andsome were seen as interlopersthat is, as new organiza-tions arriving on the scene with lots of money, threaten-ing to compete with and possibly supplant existingorganizations already serving children and families.However, many welcomed these new organizations forbringing a much-needed focusand long-awaitedresourcesto children's issues.

The original legislation called for each county to receivetraining in collaboration strategies and a planning processto follow. While local Partnerships initially developed

2317


their own plans, the state Smart Start organization laterdeveloped a template for structuring the plan, not theprocess. After the second year of the initiative, local

Partnerships had to submit annual plans that followed aset outline. How they developed the plan and addressedtheir community's needs remained a local process.However, during each subsequent year, more guidelinesfor the content of a Smart Start Annual Plan were devel-oped by the state to provide those counties entering theinitiative in years four and five with a more prescriptiveprocess to follow.

As a result, the programs and services these later countiesput into their plans were often replicated from what coun-ties had done before them. The drive to meet the state-setguidelines sometimes meant that the later counties con-densed their planning process to eliminate community-wide involvement, or updated previously submitted plans,or relied heavily on outside consultants and the plans ofother Partnerships to shape their goals. This rush to meetstate guidelines often diminished the individual approachto planning that was based upon specific county needsand led to a "one size fits all" homogenized approach.

The Smart Start vision involved using local communityneeds data to build a plan for addressing those needs."Strategic planning needs to be based on facts, not justpeople's assumptions," one Partnership ExecutiveDirector noted. The facts, however, were not always read-ily available when a Smart Start grant was awarded to acounty. Sometimes, the community needs assessmentswere outdated and often the assessments were producedbased on a statewide, rather than a local, perspective. Inthe first years of Smart Start, the NC Division of ChildDevelopment gave a $15,000 stipend to counties toobtain a community needs assessment at the local level.But many Partnerships found it difficult to perform bothan assessment process and an annual planning process atthe same time, while struggling to set up their organiza-tion's administrative operations.

Because of variances in diversity and need from county tocounty, the planning processes varied dramatically. Whilesome counties involved only the 20 or 30 PartnershipBoard members in the process, others organized commu-nity-wide focus groups that brought hundreds of peopleinto the picture. Similarly, some counties developed a

plan for "how to spend the money" within a few weeks;others entered into a six- to eight-month process todefine the needs and set goals and objectives in a long-range plan.

Fiscal Year Spending Constraints impactPlanning

For all Partnerships, one requirement had a dramaticimpact on planning: public funds had to be spent withinone fiscal year. Here's how this worked: the deadline to

submit a county annual plan in order to receive or renewany Smart Start grant was April 1, which was threemonths before the June 30 close of the fiscal year. Thepart-time state legislature typically convened in April orMay, received the governor's budget proposal, and debat-ed a state budget for several months. The state's fiscalyear began July 1.

This meant that local Partnerships scurried to determinetheir goals and programs to fund for the upcoming fiscalyear. They put these decisions into their annual planssubmitted by April 1 to the state organization. Then theywaited to see what was in the state budget for Smart Startas voted by the state's legislature. Often, the state legisla-

ture did not complete their deliberations by July 1. LocalPartnerships waited into September and October before afinal decision on the amount of that year's allocation wasknown. Thus, the plan submitted by April 1 often didnot have funding for local programs until four or fivemonths after the start of a fiscal year. These funds had tobe spent locally by June 30.

In the first five years of Smart Start, the state legislaturefailed to agree on a state budget before the June 30 closeof the fiscal year and debated into August and Septemberof the following fiscal year. So while the local plan had todescribe in detail how funds would be allocated in thefollowing fiscal year, they often had to be submittedmonths before locals knew the amountor allocationdateof state funding. Early in the development ofSmart Start, this was a major challenge for local countiesthat were still immersed in disbursing funds in the cur-rent fiscal year and, often, had not tackled a plan for thefuture. Even now, when Smart Start has moved to two-year allocations, it is still a planning challenge to meetthe constraints of the fiscal year budget process.

29

In the first year of Smart Start grants, there was enor-mous pressure to spend the funds at the local level beforethe fiscal year ended on June 30. Since the first statefunds did not actually flow into the first 12 countiesuntil January, it meant that counties had a scant sixmonths to disburse the dollars into local programsandproduce results. This "rush to spend" caused many localplanning processes to get pushed into the backgroundand hasty decisions to be made. It soon became clear thatthere was increasing tension between the need to spendthe funds before June 30 and the equally important needto involve a wide spectrum of the county in planning, sothat the funds could be spent effectively.

Each Year Brought Changes to the PlanningProcess

The lesson to "plan before you spend" has been learnedover the last few years of the Smart Start initiative inNorth Carolina. Based on the experience of first yearPartnerships, modifications in planning and spendingtimelines were made. For instance, in the second year ofSmart Start, local Partnerships were awarded only a six-month allocationrather than the whole year's alloca-tionso they could devote more time to a planningprocess. These second year counties were also allowed to"carry over," from one fiscal year to the next, any unspentfunds as of June 30. Then in the third year, counties were

" LOCAL

LESSON 2: Plan Before You Spend 19

awarded only a planning grant of $50,000 and requestedto develop a strategic plan with the promise of fundingfor implementation in the following fiscal year.

By the fourth and fifth rounds of Smart Start fundinggrants, Partnerships were offered technical assistance andfunds to use for a full year of planning before receivingimplementation funds. However, those counties enteringinto Smart Start in the fifth year have complained thatthey had already been doing planning for three or fouryears during previous applications for Smart Start grantsthat were denied. As a result, year five counties havereported an increase in frustration, partly because of adecline in involvement from community participants.Many of these participants have simply tired of writingplans and want to take action.

Fortunately, as of 1998, all 100 counties in NorthCarolina are receiving Smart Start funds. What thismeans is that planning will now be part of a continuousprocess to evaluate and monitor program outcomes basedon previous expenditures and plansrather than being astandalone process required to be awarded a Smart Startgrant. Annual renewal of grants based upon movementtoward results for children will be the focus now, ratherthan development of an entirely new plan for serviceseach year.

D a 0

Based on the pressures we've described, there was littleifanycomprehensive planning during the first year ofSmart Start that looked at what already existed withincommunity service programs or defined the community'sneeds. Instead, those early Partnerships tended to rely onwhat they already knew to make their initial decisions.

Several counties were not starting from scratch, however.For instance, counties like Mecklenburg and Orangealready had established child care infrastructures. So theyput their funds immediately into viable, ongoing pro-grams. In addition, Mecklenburg, the wealthiest andmost populated county in North Carolina, turned to itswell-organized and long-standing child care agency, Child

Care Resources, Inc., for direction and information. AndOrange County enjoyed the leadership of an establishedcommunity Child Care Task Force that had done exten-sive planning and coalition building on early childhoodissues before it was awarded a Smart Start grant.

Another first-year Partnership, located in the western partof the state, was fortunate to have the involvement ofnumerous constituencies and a complete needs assess-ment to draw upon for its early decisions. The Region APartnership, located in the Appalachian mountains wherepeople are often very poor and separated by distance, iscomposed of seven rural counties that came together inthe early 1970s to receive federal monies under the

JOBEST COPY AVAILABLE


Appalachian Regional Commission, or ARC. So whenthese seven counties received a Smart Start grant in 1994,they had already been planning and discussing theirneeds for several years under an ARC grant. And theyenjoyed a long history of working together and usingconsensus to make decisions.

In the second year of Smart Start, Durham County wasawarded a grant and had three months from October 1994to January 1995 to decide where to place first its imple-mentation funds. The Durham Partnership Board hastilymade funding decisions in this timeframe during a franticperiod that included recruiting Board members, setting upthe organization and hiring stafE Like most counties, tomeet this challenge, Durham awarded funds to severalexisting programs within the county to continue the servic-es they were already providing. However, since specific out-comes for those programs had not been defined, fundingfor them sometimes had to be reversed in later years, if itbecame clear that they were not meeting the priorities thatemerged during the planning process.

Knowing that they did not want to make their nextround of funding decisions in hasteand without a long-term planDurham's Partnership entered into an exten-sive long-range strategic planning process in March of1995. The Board and staff recognized that they jeopard-ized the renewal of their Smart Start grant by not meetingthe state's requirement to submit a plan by April 1 inorder to receive funds in the next fiscal year. Yet, they feltthe short-term commitment of time into a planningprocess would mean better results for children and a moreeffective investment of public funds in the long run.

Durham put everything else on hold and launched alengthy process to generate broad-based participation, sothat, as a community, they could define both desired out-comes for children and effective strategies to get to thoseoutcomes. They also broadened the goals to go beyondchild care; they wanted to consider how community-widesystems changes could impact the way services for chil-dren and families were delivered. So, as a first step, thePartnership conducted a series of focus groups and sur-veys to solicit input from parents about their perceptionof needs. In this way, subsequent goals could be struc-

tured to address those needs. Critical to their success wasa planning process design that ensured that all voices inthe community were heard and all interests represented.That year, the state did not withhold renewal of theirSmart Start grant, even though Durham's Annual Planwas submitted late.

Learning as they went along, the state mandated a planning

period for third year counties in which no funds were allo-cated for program implementation at the local level. By the

fourth year, more than half of the 100 counties in NorthCarolina had submitted Smart Start application plans butbeen denied an award of funds from the state. One suchcounty, located on North Carolina's seacoast, decided tocontinue their efforts without Smart Start funds.Brunswick County has a growing population of retirees, athriving tourism industry, and an economy largely basedon low wage jobs that are predominant in a service indus-try. When their Smart Start grant application was deniedthe first time, a group of citizens decided to stay together

to pursue their own needs and resources assessment.

According to Lori Bates, now Executive Director of theBrunswick Partnership, "What we decided to do was tocontinue to meet monthly in preparation for next year'sapplication and to work really hard on educating our-selves about the needs and resources that were in ourcounty." Then, when their second application to SmartStart was denied a year later, they became even moreproactive. They formed their own nonprofit, hosted aState of the Child Conference in Brunswick County, andbegan raising private funds and writing other grants tofund plans they had already developed to serve childrenin their community. As a result, when Smart Start fundswere finally awarded 1997, the Partnership already hadan established and active presence in the community.

By the fifth year, counties that had not received SmartStart grants shared several characteristics. First, they weremostly the less populated, rural counties with little exist-ing infrastructure to serve children. They also tended tobe poorer economically, lack both transportation andhealth services, and suffer from a dearth of quality childcare services. However, because they had formed groups

31

to work on children's issues without state funds, theyactually had been in the planning process for several years.Not surprising, these counties were quite frustrated withthe long planning cycles and the extended wait to getstate dollars. In 1997-98, the state Partnership underwentenormous organizational growth to meet the demands ofadding 45 more counties to its rolls. Sometimes thisresulted in delays in contract approvals, late release offunds to the local counties, and more regulations to bemet by these newer counties. One regulation imposed onthese 45 counties, for example, was that they wouldreceive only a $25,000 planning grant for a year, with thepromise of program funds in the following fiscal yearif

LESSONS.

LESSON 2: Plan Before You Spend 21

the state legislature approved the budget. This uncertain-ty increased frustration dramatically.

Another pressure on these fifth-year counties was to findways to regionalize, or come together, in order to save onadministrative costs. Some counties, like Henderson,Granville, and Vance counties, formed one Partnershiporganization to apply for a Smart Start grant. Their plan-ning process involved representatives from each of thethree counties coming together to assess their communityneeds and determine ways to address them together.Several of these multi-county entities were funded in1997/98.

RNEDW

Put time and resources up front into planning.Goals and outcomes cannot be reached in the longterm if a community doesn't develop a plan based onthe needs of its children.

A planning process that involves the broader com-munity generates long term community supportand commitment.When people feel that their voice and interests areheard and incorporated into goal setting, their invest-ment in long-term participation is greater.

Don't let fiscal year funding constraints dictatewhen and how a community spends public funds.Long-term outcomes do not happen quickly. Improv-ing the quality of child care takes time. A program toimprove the lives of young children demands at leastfive years to produce measurable outcomes for a child.

Base a community plan on facts obtained througha needs assessment that is current and covers allsegments of a community.Collecting baseline data from which to measureimprovement is crucial. Look to other organizationsfor assessment data already collected. Existing data canbe enhanced through surveys, focus groups, and othertechniques.

Make planning a continuous process.Revisit a strategic plan at least once annually andreview outcome data collected from the funded pro-grams. Then revise your plan based on the movementmade each year toward the stated goals and objectivesin that county or community.

3 2

22 G SHARING THE STORIES

A STORY FROM DARE COUNTY

Dare County, a busy summer tourist residence, is home

to North Carolina's very popular Outer Banks which con-

tain some of the finest beaches on the East Coast.

Within this county are top attractions Like Nags Head,

Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, along with Roanoke

Island and the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. In

1998, the total year-round population was estimated at

28,200; various projections, however, point to increas-

ing rates of growth beyond the 3.5% growth seen

between 1995 and 1998. This population increase is

occurring in spite of the high cost of Living that results

from a seasonal tourist influx. Although housing is

quite expensive, for example, many jobs in the county

are in the low -wage service industry. And while the

poverty level of young children is lower than the state

average, there are many families with limited resources

living in this high wealth county.

Concerned citizens recognized a problem and began the

strategic planning process that offers a model for how

"planning before you spend" can pay long-term divi-

dends for a county and its children. Although Dare

County did not receive a Smart Start grant until the

fifth year, in 1997, much planning had already gone on

for children in this county, thanks to the Children &

Youth Partnership for Dare County. This organization

was formed in 1994 following a State of the Child

Conference.

At that conference, two community issues were identi-

fied as priorities: (1) the large number of foster children

from the county who were being transported across the

state for placements and (2) the need for a youth cen-

ter devoted to teens.

As a result, following the conference, the Children &

Youth Partnership decided to organize a home for

abused and neglected children. And they accomplished

this project three years before receiving Smart Start

funding. Their second project was to build a Dare

County Youth Center. In May of 1999, the groundbreak-

ing for the Center took place. Originally targeted to

serve teens, the Center is designed to serve children of

all ages, as well as retirees. The Partnership has been

coordinating two capital campaigns to raise funds for

both of these projects.

How did all this occur in a few short years? First, the

community came together around a set project-a home

for abused and neglected children. Second, the organi-

zation's rationale for existence was not to receive a

Smart Start grant; rather, the group declared: "We

pledge ourselves to the well being of children as our

sole reason for existence as an organization." Among

other goals, it committed itself "to ensure that every

child will develop to their maximum potentiaL" In

addition, the Partnership announced that it would serve

children of all ages and their families, not Limiting their

efforts to impact children from birth to age five.

The planning process for the development of the 1997-

1999 strategic plan followed a pattern established since

the organization's inception. First, the Board executive

committee and the executive director met to formulate

a plan of action and a timeline. They then hired a facili-

tator to assist with a Board retreat. At this retreat, the

Board revisited activities already in place and studied

data produced from these projects, as well as other rele-

vant information that would impact decision-making

about children in the county. In addition, the Board

committed to continue existing projects and determined

the direction for additional programming. And, at this

retreat, the Board retained the four original goals of the

organization and began to outline benchmarks by which

to measure the outcomes.

Following this retreat, three task forces-child care,

health, and family support-launched a series of meet-

ings to discuss planning for the next two years based

upon the Board's decisions. And, in an effort to ensure

both diverse community representation and expertise,

the Board encouraged new members to join the task

forces. Letters were sent to all registered child care

providers in the county asking for suggestions, evalua-

tions of projects in place, and volunteers to sit on com-

mittees or be involved in the planning process. The

Coast land Times, a local paper, even sat in on the Board

33

meetings during this planning and approval process to

provide media coverage of the plans to the community.

Ultimately, the committees developed exacting bench-

marks, new proposals for programs, and refined some of

the currently existing projects.

The Board approved the submission of local proposals

and forwarded them in a biennial plan to the North

Carolina Partnership for Children for approval. Since the

Children & Youth Partnership did not know the amount

of the Smart Start allocation (because the NC General

Assembly had not yet met or approved the state bud-

get), its Board prioritized new projects as follows:

(1) top tier: continuing activities which had top priori-

ty, (2) second tier: new activities which could be initi-

LESSON 2: Plan Before You Spend 1 23

ated, if funds were available; and (3) third tier: activi-

ties which are desired and needed, but require further

information, assessment, or development before imple-

mentation is possible.

Executive Director Loretta Michael provided this summa-

ry of Dare County's philosophy toward planning: "The

Children and Youth Partnership hope to sponsor a State

of the Child Conference in 2000. It has been five years

since the last conference, and we feel it is important to

once again have a means for a county-wide assessment

of needs of children and to evaluate what has taken

place during the past five years in the many organiza-

tions serving children in our county." With this next

conference, the planning cycle will come full circle.

3 4

LESSON

Build the Local Organization

s sa ss, saaa ass, ss aal a.. a ss is* a q,ss rap s ..,,Ss. as,, ,'.4...

a ek °I ° 0 ° , 41° 0 33. a e $ te ee 4, eye s ,r-t t t BAWGROUND t, . et,tqta, at, qt., AyllzTn ,$n

The Smart Start model was designed to maximizelocal implementation by relying on community-

based partnerships to make decisions about both agencyoperations and service design. Early state leaders pro-claimed that Smart Start would reinvent governmentbecause it was intended to be a "bottoms up, ratherthan top down initiative." Local control would alsoguarantee that the state not dictate a "cookie-cutter"approach to implementation. Instead, local volunteerBoards, composed of community representatives, wouldbe empowered to plan and develop services in their owncounties. As a result, local Partnerships today have theauthority and responsibility to award grants and con-tracts to community agencies to implement neededservices for young children and families. Smart Start'ssuccess and future rest on the ability of localPartnerships to be not only good stewards of publicfunds, but also highly competent community leadersand program developers.

Each local Partnership is required to be an independentnonprofit organization. Yet, in many ways, localPartnerships are unique hybrid organizationspart non-profit, part foundation, part state agency.

Nonprofit. Each Partnership tries to engage the com-munity in creating a system of services to support the

successful development of young children and theirfamilies.

Foundation. Each Partnership develops fundingguidelines and strategies and awards grants to commu-nity agencies.

State agency. Each Partnership exists within the con-text of state mandates and accountability standards, andmust have a state audit of its fiscal operations every year.

Over the past five years, as the initiative has grown, the

local Partnership model and definition of services havegone through continuous change. Administration andprogram focus, for example, have been reshaped each year.And in each legislative cycle, the political struggles for

expansion and funding have played out in the N.C.General Assembly. State administration has also beenshifted from the Division of Child Development to theN.C. Partnership for Children, which has had to build itsown organizational capacity to respond to new legislativemandates.

As of 1999, the Smart Start model now in place is builtupon several key components that have significant impacton the organizational models, structures, and capabilitiesof local Partnerships.

v5 25


Local Partnerships are required to be new nonprof-it corporations. Although the initial legislationallowed existing nonprofit agencies to implementSmart Start if they retooled to meet the state require-ments, by the second year only new nonprofits wereconsidered appropriate. State leaders believed that anew nonprofit would bring synergy in the communityand a pure focus on the mission of helping childrenarrive at school healthy and ready to succeed.

Administrative funds are capped at $100,000 or nomore than 8% of total service dollars. While stateleaders recognized that each local Partnership wouldneed capacity to implement the Smart Start program,the intention was to keep administrative costsextremely low so that the resources would be focusedon services. Many believed that a nonprofit could gar-ner local contributions of services to make it self-suffi-cient, like free rent and donated accounting services.

Local responsibilities for program monitoring,accounting, and contracting have grown over time,although the administrative formula has neverchanged. In fact, the administrative minimum hasbeen reduced to $50,000 for counties funded after1997. The capping of administrative costs has hadsignificant impact on all Partnerships. Smaller, ruralPartnerships that may be one-person operations havebeen struggling to set up well functioning organiza-tions and have found it very difficult to establish morethan minimal administrative staff.

Decisions about best strategies to improve the livesof young children and families are best left to localcommunities via the Partnerships. This philosophywas the centerpiece of the original Smart Start vision.State leaders did not want to impose a prescriptiveprogram, but wanted communities to collaborativelydetermine what was needed. However, tensionsquickly developed between state and local leaders as tohow innovative local Partnerships could be and wherethe programmatic lines would be drawn. Over time,state leaders and the legislature have established certainparameters to guide local decision-making about serv-ices. Beginning with a "Must Have" list that summa-rized a few key state expectations, Smart Start has beenretooled and refocused, becoming more prescriptive

36

than originally envisioned. The 1996 legislative man-dates brought about the most change, particularlywith the requirement that local Partnerships mustspend 70% of their total funds on "child care relatedactivities" of which 30% must be directed to childcare subsidies. The balance may be spent on child

health and family support activities, or other discre-tionary activities such as program evaluation.

Contracting for local services will be done at thelocal level. It became quickly evident in the first yearthat the state could not efficiently develop and admin-ister the numerous contracts that were needed by localPartnerships to implement services. By the secondyear, local Partnerships were required to take on theseresponsibilities for contracting, although no increase inadministrative or technical support occurred. In yearthree, the legislature again changed the process andrequired the N.C. Partnership for Children to developstandardized accounting and contracting procedureswhich led to the direct administration by NCPC forthese functions. This change only applied to newPartnerships coming on line; those already in placewere left with these responsibilities.

Accounting processes must be standardized at thelocal level to meet state audit requirements. TheCoopers and Lybrand 1996 study of Smart Start criti-cized the many different approaches taken by localPartnerships as an inefficient and costly way to imple-ment Smart Start. This report gave the state auditorsthe basis for requiring standardized accounting proce-dures among local Partnerships and raised the bar forlocal compliance. While the state auditors have pro-vided considerable technical assistance to localPartnerships, it also forced Partnerships to developstate-government type technology and procedureswhich are expensive and time consuming and oftenbeyond the skill or resources of local volunteer Boardsand nonprofit agencies. Most Partnerships have threeor fewer administrative /fiscal staff and this creates enor-mous challenges in meeting the strict internal controlsand operations required by the state audit.

Different Organizational Models

Local Partnerships have evolved various models and organi-

zational structures to respond to the Smart Start mandates

and demonstrate accountability. One model is the "StandAlone" model in which the local Partnership remains anindependent organization with its own 501(c)(3) legal sta-tus. This model tends to take place in larger counties thathave adequate administrative resources, and in thosePartnerships that developed in the first two years regardlessof their size. Another model is the "multi-county" or"regional" Partnership that combines several counties underthe leadership of one executive director and Board ofDirectors. A newly emerging model is the "LeadPartnership Hub." In this model, several independentPartnerships combine or subcontract their accounting, con-tracting, and or evaluation to one Partnership that serves asthe hub for central administration of these functions.

For well-funded Partnerships with a large budget andnumerous activities and contracts, it makes the mostsense to remain a stand-alone operation. For smallerPartnerships, the administrative resources are often notsufficient to create and support an effective organization.Regardless of size, many Partnerships have developedcommunity services directly out of their Partnerships andhave become community service providers, particularly inthe child care arena. Developing local child care resourceand referral programs or child care subsidy programs arethe most common services provided by local Partnerships,although others are developing family support programs.In this way, a Partnership is able to build a larger agencyand funding base, which then makes it possible to allo-cate administrative costs over service activities, thereby

LESSON 3: Build the Local Organization 27

relieving some organizational pressures.

At the state level, concern still exists about the effective-ness of having each local Partnership assume responsibili-ty for administration, particularly the accounting andcontracting functions. Earlier studies had cited the "inef-ficiency of having 100 different administrative agents"and called for the state to standardize and even centralizethese functions within the North Carolina Partnershipfor Children. In 1996, NCPC was required by the statelegislature to take on the accounting and contractingresponsibilities for year four and five Partnerships for atleast the first two years of a Partnership's development, sothat the local Partnership could concentrate on buildingan effective organization.

NCPC, in response to legislative concerns about exces-sive administrative costs, has actively promoted volun-tary regional approaches among Partnerships. In 1999,NCPC began the process of promoting multipleaccounting and contracting sites (MACS) which wouldcombine accounting and contracting functions for sev-eral Partnerships using various models. The goal ofthese models is to consolidate accounting and contract-ing functions to reduce costs and promote efficiencyand effectiveness. This approach will also improve theability of NCPC to monitor local Partnerships, becausethere would be fewer Partnerships. As Smart Start con-tinues to evolve, the future is likely to see greater com-binations of joint efforts and multi-county Partnerships.

Putting all the pieces together to build an effective newnonprofit has been incredibly challenging and hard workfor every Partnership. The pressure to create a new organi-zation and do the planning required for Smart Start hasbeen intense. The set-up and incorporation of a new non-profit, hiring and training staff, recruiting and orientingBoard members, organizing accounting procedures andpolicies, and developing program funding criteria wereoften crammed into the first six months of operations.

Partnerships wrestled with how to proceed given theadministrative resources they had and an uncertain future

that might provide additional dollars. Several modes ofoperation have emerged, some right from the start andothers after trying and discarding the first approach.

Regardless of the model chosen, to effectively administerSmart Start and achieve their inherent mission of "help-ing all children arrive at school healthy and ready to suc-ceed," each Partnership must either develop or purchasecapacity in accounting, contracting, program monitoringand evaluation, fundraising, and marketing. This is a tallorder for local Partnerships with limited administrativefunds and requires creativity and resourcefulness.

7%./


Stand-Alone Model

During the first years, all of the Partnerships except theRegion A Partnership for Children, developed indepen-dent stand-alone models regardless of their size. In yeartwo, some Partnerships joined forces across two countylines, such as the Down East Partnership in Nash andEdgecombe counties and the Lenoir-Green Partnership.In later years, the stand-alone model is still predominant,primarily because the funding formula for Smart Start

remains county-based.

The Chatham County Partnership, which is a smallrural Partnership with a $100,000 administrative alloca-tion, has a full-time executive director and an adminis-trative assistant who are primarily responsible for fiscalmanagement and contracting responsibilities. A part-time bookkeeper and occasional CPA services providesome accounting support. The part-time program eval-uator is paid with service funds. Jenny Megginson, theexecutive director, remembers the early days of Smart

Start. "All of us were on a fast train, and we didn'teven know where we were going." Today, her recipe forstaffing the Partnership is to focus her energy on doingthe administration well, concentrating on staff and fiscalmanagement, doing as much program development aspossible, and squeezing in a little bit of fund develop-ment. Without an increase in service funds, Megginsonrecognizes that her organization cannot grow. It islooking to merge or offer support services to otherdeveloping Partnerships as one strategy to develop morecapacity and resources, and is seeking other fundingbesides Smart Start.

Multi-County Partnerships

In the coastal northeastern section of the state lie severalcounties with low child populations. In 1995, thePasquotank County Partnership was begun. In 1997, theCamden and Currituck counties were awarded planninggrants and each built its own Partnership with a separateBoard of Directors. One year later, in July 1998, theAlbermarle Partnership was founded out of a merger ofthe three Partnerships. According to Jim Glasson, thenew executive director of the newly formed AlbermarlePartnership, necessity and effectiveness were the primarymotivators that led to the consolidation, although the

geographic proximity and similarities among the countiesmade it a natural connection. All three counties alsoshared some services including the library and the healthdepartment, so there was some history of sharingresources in this rural area.

"Small counties have real resource problems when itcomes to overseeing the kind of budgetary, state-leveltypes of things that Smart Start requires," observesGlasson. The Albermarle Partnership struggled under itssmall administrative allocation and never had the capacityto administer the program very well. The Camden andCurrituck Partnerships could foresee a similar future,since they too faced inadequate administrative resourcesbecause of their small size. The new Partnership hastransformed the single executive director position intothree positions: the executive director, a program manag-er, and a fiscal manager. By pooling resources, thePartnership was able to expand the staff and attract morequalified people than ever before. "When you look at thefact that one person was doing all of this, it really was apretty impossible job," Glasson adds.

The new Albermarle Partnership was created out of theadvisory Boards that guided the development of the newregional Board. Each county sent nine representatives thatmatched the Smart Start legislative mandates. This hasbeen very helpful in addressing the conflict of interest thatis inherent in Smart Start by increasing the talent pool ofresources among the people making funding decisions.

Programming strength has also increased with the newPartnership now offering a comprehensive child careresource and referral agency across all three counties anda family resource center program. The new Partnership isnow equipped to develop other programs, filling the gap

in building the child care and family support servicedelivery system. Glasson hopes that the Partnership willserve as an incubator for these new programs which one

day may spin off and become independent communityservices. "What's happened in the past year is that we'vebecome a real regional Partnership," concludes Glasson.

Lead Partnership Hub

Another model that leaves individual Partnerships intactwith their own independent Boards, but consolidates

38

LESSON 3: Build the Local Organization 29

accounting and contracting functions, is the "LeadPartnership Hub" model. The Buncombe CountyPartnership for Children has pioneered this approach.Buncombe is a medium size county with a $4,000,000operating budget. It serves as the administrative hub forthe surrounding counties of Madison, Henderson, Polk,and Transylvania, all of which are year five Partnershipswith only $50,000 each in administrative allocations."The Board had sufficient vision that regional processesmade sense, helping our neighbor made sense," accordingto Ron Bradford, Buncombe's executive director. TheBuncombe Partnership, with a three-person staff, con-tracts with an accounting firm to provide these services tothe other Partnerships. It handles all contracts and pre-pares all financial reports. The five Partnerships share inthe costs for these services. Existing costs to Buncombe

are shared by each county on the percentage of their allo-cations for services and administration.

No merger of these Partnerships into one entity is envi-sioned for the future. "It's not in anyone's particularinterest or vision to do that. What makes thePartnerships work is when they can be local and locallydriven," adds Bradford. Consolidating administrativefunctions gives the new Partnerships the expertise theyneed, and allows them to focus their scare resources onother areas. This model may lead to other ventures inthe future. A newly organized regional committee willstart looking at some other strategic areas for collabora-tion, such as "crossover services" when services are thesame from one county to another or where parents accessservices in another county.

LESSONS LEARNED

Plan the initiative carefully in the beginning,changing directions in midstream creates confusionand chaos.Smart Start was clear that local Partnerships would bethe lead entity for implementing services, but politicalpressures which led to changes in legislative mandatesand the shifting of state administrative agencies haveplayed havoc with local organizational development.

Clearly define state and local roles/responsibilities.Tension has always existed between the state andlocal Partnerships around the meaning of "local con-trol" and "accountability." Trying to achieve a bal-ance between state administration and supervisionand local implementation is very difficult, and sub-ject to shifting political winds. However, the stateshould define the specific areas of autonomy for localPartnerships to reduce confusion and frustration atthe local levels.

Provide adequate administrative resources.Smart Start caps administrative resources for localPartnerships at 8% of total service dollars. This is notadequate when local Partnerships are subject to stategovernment standards for fiscal accountability andrequired to provide program evaluation services aswell. Since the funding formula is based primarily on

population size, small rural Partnerships remain underresourced to effectively administer Smart Start, andmust consider collaborative approaches if they are tobe successful.

Comprehensive technical assistance is essential tolocal success.State leadership must provide comprehensive technicalassistance to local Partnerships if they are to be suc-cessful. Local Partnerships have to be competent stew-ards of public funds, as well as competent communitydevelopers and program evaluators. The hybrid natureof local Partnerships as developer, service provider, andfunder requires skills and expertise that exceed thosefound in either the traditional nonprofit or govern-ment sectors.

Develop the local organizational models at thebeginning.Local Partnerships have been on their own in discover-ing what organizational model will work best forthem, and each has evolved in the context of theirown community resources and cultures. While this isone of the strengths of this model, it requires a con-stant reinventing of the local Partnership to accommo-date changing state requirements which can be verytime consuming and expensive. Providing a range of

3 a


models with a base level of funding to support themandated functions required of a local Partnership

would have been the ideal for launching the localPartnerships.

A STORY FROM REGION A

The original multi-county Partnership is the Region A

Partnership for Children, which is nestled in the south-

western mountains of North Carolina. Started in 1994,

this Partnership serves a seven-county region and theeastern band of the Cherokee nation. The regionalconfiguration is based on the Council of Governments

(COG) structure, which pulled counties together tostrengthen municipal government functions in the early1970s. June Smith is the Executive Director of the

Partnership which has a 1998-99 operating budget of

$2.3 million, which includes $177,590 for administra-tive allocation. In addition to the full-time executivedirector, its staff includes a full-time administrative

assistant, a part-time evaluator, a project manager anda development director who is paid from a special pri-vate sector grant.

Cooperative efforts have a long history in this part ofthe state. June credits the COG director, Bill Gibson,

for his leadership in promoting a regional Partnership.

"His experience in believing in regionalism has been

influential. He has worked with the county and munici-

pal governments long enough that they all share theidea that we are so remote from the seat of power, andso poor economically, that if we don't work together,we'll never get anywhere."

It was the COG that developed the Southwestern Child

Development Commission as a nonprofit to develop

child care in the region. Still in existence today,

Southwestern now administers the state contract for

child care subsidies in the region, and believes that

with one administrative agency the funding will go fur-ther and serve more children and families.

While the history of centralized administration andregional development certainty helped the Partnershipget started, relationship and decision-making chal-

lenges stilt existed for the agency. "The original SmartStart team burned up the pavement, burned up thetelephone, burned the midnight oil, and then started

meeting...endless meetings and brainstorming to putthe regional proposal together" recalls Smith.

Today, the Partnership has one Board of Directors with

representation from all seven counties. To keep indi-vidual counties vested in the regional approach, each

county has its own Smart Start team and the chair ofthis team serves on the Executive Committee of thePartnership Board. As a regional Partnership, they

could not afford to have split voting occur which couldhave undermined support for Smart Start, so the Boarddeveloped a consensus model of operating. When itcomes time to pass a policy or a budget, the Chair asks

for a show of hands of all who are in favor. Next, heasks for a show of hands of all of those who cannotsupport it. Opportunity for discussion then follows tosee if there is some way that it can be supported. If

not, the proposal goes back to the drawing board or toa committee to be worked out, and then back to thefull Board.

"The strength of our Partnership has been that we havehad a small, dedicated, extremely visionary group ofpeople who wanted to make it work," concludes JuneSmith. Other key ingredients? "Flexibility and a senseof humor, whether you're the ED or the Board Chair.That's the only way to stand the constant change. Oh,

and I like to meet challenges," she added.

40

LESSON

Collaboration is Crucial

t 17 4 14 A /414'p 4 41'4 la "P

B66 ring everyone to the table" was a common phraseheard throughout the development of the statewide

early childhood initiative in North Carolina, called SmartStart.

As originally designed, leaders from many areasbusiness,government, education, churches, nonprofit, child andfamily advocacy groupswere to come together in eachcounty to map out a blueprint for improving early child-hood education, health care, and services for families inthat community. In this model, the State set the goals, theneach local county developed a strategy to meet those goals.

A single plan for everyone wouldn't work because eachcounty had its own distinctive needs, economic make-up,and culture. However, in requesting these customizedplans, leaders recognized that collaboration would be thekey to successful planning. Specifically, each county had toagree on a common vision, then learn how to share infor-mation, resources, and responsibility to achieve its goals.

There was also an important fiscal mandate from thestate: counties had to account for every taxpayer dollarspent to support local activities.

From the beginning, the state legislation to establishSmart Start said each county had to set up a new non-

profit organization with a set composition of directors.That is, in order to receive a grant, each county wasrequired to include on its Board of Directors the follow-ing minimum representation:

a county commissioner

the county manager

the directors of the local departments of SocialServices, Health, and Mental Health

the superintendent of public schools

the community college president

the chair of the local cooperative extension agency

two business leaders

two family members from families with preschoolchildren receiving child care subsidies

a religious leader

a Head Start representative

a child care provider

a representative from the child care resource and refe-ral agency or another non-profit related to child care

a representative from the local library

a representative from the local Interagency

Coordinating Council or a parent of a child with adisability

a representative from a local foundation

41 31


Thanks to this broad-based representation, membersfrom these various backgroundsequipped with a wealthof different perspectivescould sit around a table andwork together to create a comprehensive system for chil-dren. If they chose, local county Partnerships could evenexpand upon this required representation. So otherBoard positions were sometimes added to include theUnited Way, parents, and other groups.

The vision was clear: members from all parts of a countywould come together under the Partnership umbrella andhelp the entire community embraceand act upontheneeds of children. The legislation sought to foster a col-laborative approach to addressing these needs.

Smart Start leaders saw two big issues for communityBoards to address: complexity and funding.

First, the problems facing young children and their fami-lies are complex and interrelated. As a result, no singlesegment of the community can fully understand the chal-lenges confronting families and children. Only throughthe bringing together of this large group of peoplewiththeir varied perspectives and experiencescan a communi-ty develop an accurate analysis of the current realities fac-ing young children and their families.

Second, regardless of how much money was appropriatedto Smart Start, it would never be enough to fully meetthe needs of all the state's young children and their fami-lies. So for any community to develop and implement asuccessful plan, Smart Start dollars had to be blendedwith other resources. These resources could come fromprivate, other public, non-profit, and religious sectors ofa community. To help ensure that these additional fundswere leveraged properly, members from these other sec-tors would also need to participate fully in the develop-ment and implementation of the plan.

Leaders also recognized that participation alone wouldnot guarantee success, so step-by-step training for localPartnerships became a priority. The goals of this trainingwere specific: (1) to foster a shared understanding aboutthe needs of children and families in each communityand (2) to promote consensus about the best ways tomeet those needs. So, during a series of three-day

retreats, Board members learned how to share informa-tion, vision, resources, power, and accountability.

A consultant group called The County CollaborationProject organized these three-day sessions for PartnershipBoard and staff delegations, facilitated their discussions,and provided a flexible framework within which eachSmart Start Partnership could work together to developtheir own decision-making process. At the heart of thatprocess was an ongoing strategic planning cycle, as out-lined in the County Collaboration Manual, with threemain goals:

To analyze the current realities for children and fami-lies,

To define the local Partnership's vision and priorityresults, and

To develop and implement an action plan.

The collaboration retreat sessions provided an opportunityfor local groups to work on their strategic plans, while also

learning techniques to foster collaboration both withintheir own counties and through their Board activities.These sessions were mandatory for all Smart StartPartnerships funded within the first two years of thisinitiative.

Also, each Partnership was assigned a "coach," someonewho observed, offered suggestions, and supported thelocal county Partnership's efforts. These coaches wereexperienced and knowledgeable about various aspects ofnonprofit organizational development and about ways tofoster collaborative approaches in the community.

After two years, the N.C. General Assembly came tobelieve that the funding to support this technical assis-tance training project was not having a "direct" impacton children and eliminated the funds for it. As a result,those counties entering into Smart Start grants in 1997and 1998 did not receive collaboration training. Later,however, funds were restored to the N.C. Partnership forChildren's budget, enabling a series of trainingsessionsnow called Collaboration Institutesto beoffered in 1999 and 2000 to the more recently estab-lished Partnerships' Boards and staff.

42

LESSON 4: Collaboration is Crucial t. 33

LOCAL PARTNERSHIP ERSBEENTINES

In general, collaborative efforts work best when they areopen and visible processes with everyone getting involvedin their planning and implementation. Often, they needto produce a result or demonstrate an improvement inorder to confirm their legitimacy and effectiveness as aprocess. This is because, at root, collaboration is aboutrelationships. Whenever the leadership of the PartnershipBoard or its staff has a network of relationships through-out the community, shared interests and resources tend tocome together in a collaborative approach.

Benefits of Service 'Integration

A change in the delivery of program services in a commu-nity is often an instance where collaboration works best.Here's how it can work: community leaders might recog-nize that programs and services are duplicated, therebycreating obstacles to families who need those services. Sothey modify the public services system by integrating, orstreamlining, services. Through a collaborative process,

different groups come together and focus on how to con-solidate each service to better meet the needs of families.And the outcome can be significant improvement in howthese programs assist families with young children.

A specific example of this integration is underway inCumberland County, home to several major U.S. militarybases and 32,000 children between the ages of 0 and 5,20% of whom live in families with incomes below thepoverty line. To make sure these and other children hadaccess to affordable child care, the local Smart StartPartnership invited all the community agencies and non-profit programs that deliver subsidized child care to jointogether in a collaborative planning process. As theyshared experiences around the table, they acknowledgedthat parents in their community felt great confusion aboutincome and eligibility requirements, application forms,and subsidy rates that differ from program to program.

To reduce confusion, a group of agency directors, childcare providers, and parents embarked on a planningprocess. Together they "mapped" how various child caresubsidy services are delivered through Head Start, centerson the military bases, private child care centers in the city

of Fayetteville, and others. Through this mapping process,they pinpointed the areas of duplication of services andthe numerous local, county, state, and federal revenuestreams that provided funds for this subsidized care. Andnow, they are working on the integration and streamliningof their agencies' functions with a universal applicationform, centralized databases, and other sharing of informa-tion strategies.

Efficiency of Shared Administrative Resources

Collaborative approaches also can lead to the more effec-tive use of limited administrative resources. In the middleof North Carolina is a three-county area called theTriangle, which includes Durham, Orange, and Wakecounties. The Triangle area includes three maincitiesRaleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hillall of which arewithin a 25-mile radius of each other. Each of these com-munities was awarded a separate Smart Start grant andformed a separate Partnership organization. What makesthis area unique is that, because of the proximity of thesecities, people often work in one county, live in another,and commute and shop in a third.

With the overlap in services and populations present inthe Triangle, the three Partnerships had opportunities forcollaborative approaches to increase efficiencies in the useof time, money, and effective services. Each of thePartnerships was formed in different years with theOrange County Partnership for Children receiving a grantin 1994, Durham's Partnership for Children in 1995, andthe Wake Smart Start in 1996. So once their organizationswere established, they began to share the costs of account-ant and bookkeeping services by hiring one contractorwho traveled to the three county Partnership locations. Inthis way, they reduced some operational costs by havingone person serve all three counties.

They also collaborated on fundraising appeals to Trianglearea businesses in two ways: (a) by sharing the costs of astaff Director of Resource Development and (b) by plan-ning a united marketing campaign to employers located inthe Research Triangle Park, a high-tech industrial parklocated near all three counties.

43


Sometimes co-location of programs can lead to a morefamily friendly delivery of services, while also efficiently

reducing costs. The Down East Partnership for Childrenin Rocky Mount renovated a former school building andinvited other public and nonprofit agencies to co-locatetheir programs there. This "one-stop shopping" familyresource center to which parents could come for health,mental health, child care subsidy, and other services fortheir young children provided easier and less time-con-

suming access for families.

Value of Combining Forces

It is said that "links coupled together are stronger thanany one link in a chain." This is certainly true whenagencies bond together to create a stronger service.

In Ashe County, the Partnership joined with the countycooperative extension services' 4-H Advisory Council tocreate an endowment for children, since their programs

Developing inter-agency collaboration is extremelytime-consuming and process-intensiveand requiresmulti-year planning and support.The initial phase of Smart Start emphasized collabora-tion and offered technical assistance and resource sup-port for it. However, the pressures on Partnershipswere great: to generate an immediate impact on chil-dren; to fund direct services, rather than planning; andto measure outcomes before programs could actuallyget underway. This meant that the time and resourcesto support collaboration began to fade after the firsttwo years. The Smart Start design did not build intime to allow relationships to develop or for any seri-ous joint planning to occur.

In order to be effective, a statewide initiative needscollaboration to occur at the local, state, and federallevels.

While local Partnerships often worked toward commu-nity collaboration, the state's funding streams some-times presented barriers to their efforts. Although

are designed for two consecutive age groups. While SmartStart serves young children, ages 0-5 years, the 4-H pro-

gram serves children 6-12 years of age.

By collaborating on the message and fundraising efforts totheir community, these organizations broadened theirappeal and services to a wider number and age-range ofchildren. And, because Ashe County is located in a rural,mountainous area of the state with limited resources, theyworked together to create a stream of permanent unre-stricted private funds to pay for programs offered by bothorganizations.

Through collaboration, therefore, they were able to createan endowment on behalf of all children ages 0-12 whichbroadened their base of support and attracted potentialdonors with an interest in the welfare of all children inthis small rural county. It also allowed for public fundsfrom Smart Start to be blended with private funds fromthe community.

4 4

funding for child care subsidies goes to providers andparents from the federal, state, and county govern-ments, each level carries different requirements for how

those funds are spent. As a result, meeting those differ-ent criteria and merging the funding streams for the

benefit of the family and child can be overwhelming.So its not surprising that the fear of losing funds whenservice delivery systems are merged can lead to the fail-

ure of local collaborative efforts.

Another challenge is that state agencies often put out

mixed messages. For example, requirements for theuse of funds in the county's health department mayconflict with those in the county's mental healthdepartment. What this means is that a child whoneeds multiple services might have to forego programsfrom the health arena in order to qualify for services in

mental health. It is critical that state agencies commu-nicate about their guidelines and requirements toreduce this conflict.

Inter-agency collaboration does not guarantee thedevelopment of a client-centered service system orthe establishment of a trusting relationship betweena child's family and a helping adult or service.Unfortunately, the merging of organizations and theintegration of different services does not always meanthat the family-client is served in a more customer-driven way. Often, collaboration means that organiza-tions and staff must be re-trained to think differentlyabout the services they deliver and how they deliverthem to families and young children. Instead of fol-lowing a department's time-honored requirements forfunds, public agency staff must be re-trained andrewarded for serving the family's needs instead of theneeds of the agency.

Collaboration leads to information sharing amongagencies and a greater understanding of how fami-lies' needs might be served by a variety of programs.Often public agencies have a narrow concept of serv-ing families based on their own area of expertise and adefinition of how their funds can be applied. Theydon't always take a "holistic" view of a family's needs.If a family in crisis needs child care assistance, counsel-ing on parenting issues, therapy for drug abuse, andimmunizations for an infant, they go to three differentagenciessocial services, health, and mental health.Each agency sees the family for one defined problemand neglects to see the family's needs as a whole. Aninformation-sharing system in which the family'sapplication paperwork and their problems can be col-lected and shared among agencies can lead to a wholeview of that family's needs.

Collaboration is not a quick fix for complex andvexing problems.It takes a great deal of community input and the cre-ation of work groups, task forces, and committees tomake a collaborative process work. Often, it meansengaging the services of a consultant to facilitate andcoordinate the process, so that every player has a voiceand that the group takes an objective approach. Itrequires time and resources to be successful.

LESSON 4: Collaboration is Crucial 35

Collaboration is a means to an end, not an end initself.

It is an educational process; one of its most valuableby-products is that participants are more informedabout a problem and agree on a solution. Too often,collaboration is seen as a program, not as a process. Infact, it must be tied to a clearly defined strategic planand used to help reach the goals in that plan.

"Forcing" collaboration is not always appropriateandit does not work. Sometimes, local organizations areasked to partner for cost-saving purposes in order toreceive Smart Start funds, even when their missionsand organizational structures do not fit a collaborativemodel. Clearly, an organization must decide for itselfwhen collaboration makes sense. And then, to be suc-cessful, that organization must identify shared com-munity interests to foster trust among the players.

Collaboration occurs among peoplenot amonginstitutions.Workers must be supported at each level of organizationwhere collaboration is expected to take place. Key deci-sion-makers must agree to participate and consider it anintegral part of the decision-making process in theiragencies and in that community. Organizational leadersmust remain committed to collaboration, providingactive support to the frontline workers who deliver serv-ices. And in the planning stages for collaboration,agency directors and government decision-makers mustbe involved. They also need to help preserve the timethese frontline workers put into planning activities byre-arranging work loads, allowing time away from theirdaily duties, and sometimes offering salary incentives todo the extra work that collaboration demands.

Creative problem-solving skills must be developedand nurtured in those expected to collaborate. Keyamong these skills is the ability to deal with ambi-guity and stress.Training and technical assistance in collaboration is vital.

It is not a process that just "comes naturally," and it needsto be supported with both training and resources.

(21 5


A STORY FROM DURHAM COUNTY

Durham County set out to stitch together a "seamless

subsidy system" to provide financial child care help to

families with young children. At that time, five differ-

ent community agencies provided some kind of child

care subsidies: the county's social services department,

the Head Start agency called Operation Breakthrough,

the child care resource and referral agency called the

Durham Day Care Council, the Smart Start Partnership

for Children, and the United Way of Greater Durham.

So not only was the ability to afford child care a real

barrier for many parents, but the maze of requirements

and paperwork to get help with these costs was daunt-

ing. In their search for tuition assistance, parents were

often asked to go through various bureaucracies, meet

varying eligibility criteria, visit different agency loca-

tions, and give the same information repeatedly to

each agency.

Durham County has a population of just 150,000 and is

marked by sharp contrasts. It has both one of the high-

est per capita income levels in the state and one of the

largest percentages of people living in poverty. Long

known for its diversity, Durham has a strong African-

American middle class whose ancestors founded the

first black-owned insurance company and the first

black-owned bank in the United States. And the coun-

ty's tradition of dealing honestly and directly with race

and economic issues has meant that decisions are made

through consensus and everyone's voice must be heard

before a community decision can be agreed upon.

When the county received a Smart Start grant in 1994,

there was already a keen awareness of the lack of coor-

dination of human services. Fragmentation and duplica-

tion were words often used to describe the county's

network of public services. With more than 400 non-

profit organizations located in the county, service

providers were often tripping over each other to meet

needs and compete for limited resources. As one person

declared at a community meeting, "Durham is a bunch

of tents, but not yet a village."

Two community leadersDan Hudgins, director of the

county social services department, and Dorothy Graham;

executive director of the child care resource and referral

agencyhad been informally discussing a more con-

sumer-based, family-friendly, "one-stop shopping" way

to deliver child care subsidies. When Durham's

Partnership for Children was formed in 1994 with a

Smart Start grant, they saw an opportunity to bring

together all those organizations' funding subsidies and

integrate their delivery of services.

Since all five community agencies delivering subsidies

already had representatives on the Partnership's Board,

the stage was set for collaboration. With the assistance

of the Partnership's Executive Director, Carolyn Kroll, the

Board voted to fund a planning process to determine the

best way to build a seamless subsidy system.

During an eight-month process, agency directors and

frontline workers from each organizationas well as

child care providers and parents of children receiving

subsidiesmet to "map" the current delivery system.

They took the perspective of a parent searching for

assistance and defined the entry points, income

requirements, regulations, quality control, and compli-

ance monitoring functions that had to be faced. In the

group's discussions, they explored the intricacies of

funding streams, paperwork, application forms, and eli-

gibility requirements that each agency dealt with. An

unforeseen and valuable by-product of the mapping

process was the understanding and relationships built

as the group struggled to define the specific tasks

involved in their delivery of subsidy services.

They discovered where their services overlapped, became

aware of what staff in other agencies were doing, recog-

nized how families were answering similar questions in

each agency, and gained a real understanding of how

they were creating obstacles for families, instead of how

they were actually working together. In mapping the

funding streams, they also recognized how much farther

the resourcesworking togethercould be spread.

4 6

LESSON 4: Collaboration is Crucial & 37

And in looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the

current system, they quickly realized that individual

subsidy programs in the different organizations were

not meeting all the needs for subsidized care in the

county. At the same time, they saw that, in collabora-

tion, these programs totaled more than $10 million col-

lectively coming into the county for subsidized care

costs. In fact, more than 5,000 families were receiving

child care subsidies.

With a detailed "map" of Durham's system in hand, the

group of agency heads and frontline managers contin-

ued into a second year of planning. Together with a

consultant, they studied subsidy delivery models in

other cities and states; they analyzed the eligibilityrequirements tied to the different sources of funds; and

they developed a recommendation for the initial design

of a Durham model that fit the needs of that communi-

ty. Given Durham's diversity and its tradition of involv-

ing all stakeholders, the subsidy design recommended

was a one-stop shopping model They took this model

on the road to solicit feedback from Boards, parents,

providers, frontline workers, and others stakeholders.

In this model, parents could come to one location and

fill out a universal application that collected all the

information necessary to determine eligibility require-

ments. On the front end, parents would receive the

assistance they needed by talking to one agency per-

son, filling out one form, and getting the information

they needed for their children. On the back end, the

four organizations would work together to iron out

what funds were available, which eligibility require-

ments had to be met, and what type of care the subsi-

dies could purchase. Transportation to child care would

also be incorporated into the assistance.

Four of the five organizations granting subsidies would

perform a single role in collaboration with the others.

Department of Social Services (DSS) would determine

the eligibility requirements,

Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) would pro-

vide information to parents on the kind and quality

of care that a subsidy could purchase,

Operation Breakthrough would link transportation to

child care programs,

United Way would continue to provide funds for sub-

sidy payments to specific child care centers in

Durham County, and

Durham's Partnership for Children would provide the

accounting and administrative support for the system.

The involvement of all five organization Boards and

staff was key to the success of this collaborative

process. Throughout the third year of planning, the

subsidy design team made presentations to all Boards,

gaining each one's vote to commit their funds to the

model. The planning team also provided detailed

assessments of how the one-stop model would affect

each agency's staffing levels and budgets. This process

took a great deal of time and effort, as did the contin-ual redesign and fine-tuning of the model, based upon

community feedback.

While the planning continued over three years, actual

adjustments and enhancements to the existing subsidy

system were implemented along the way. During the

first year, all agencies developed and began to use a

universal application form. The next year, staff from the

CCR&R co- located to the DSS office where they provided

on-site guidance to parents applying for subsidies on

where to look and what to took for when they pur-

chased care. Later, the Partnership and the CCR&R

moved their facilities together into one location. And

in October 1999, a one-stop facility with a program

director for this subsidy collaboration was opened.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

LESSON

Encourage Public-PrivatePartnerships

'4: .4 Ate.,0 Cs t4t^i$

* 9$ 4 gt

Smart Start was founded as a public-private initiativeseeking to develop cash and in-kind resources from

the private sector to augment the State's allocation ofpublic funds. That is, the government and business sec-tors would forge a partnership to address a societal issuewith both tax and philanthropic dollarsand a commit-ment to be involved. Decisions on the spending of thosedollars would be made locally and would be supported bythe business community. In essence, the Smart Start strat-egy was that government would place a significant levelof public dollars on the table to invest in NorthCarolina's children and its economic future, if the privatesector would also commit dollars and time.

This concept of a "public-private partnership" grew outof a need to find ways in which both the government andthe business sectors could combine resources and addresssocial problems for the benefit of all. Business leadersthroughout the U.S. saw this partnership as a way toaddress their competitive needs for an educated and pro-ductive workforce. When North Carolina Governor JimHunt first proposed the use of more than $20 million inpublic tax dollars to help children and families, he madecertain that the leaders of North Carolina's businesseswere willing to join him on the dais to confirm their sup-port of this effort. In his speech to introduce the Smart

Start legislation, he emphasized that "the economicfuture and well-being of (our) State depend upon it."

Hunt crafted this early childhood initiative in economicterms, pointing out in a speech before a 1995 NationalGovernor's Association Conference that, "The mostimportant thing we can do to build a better future is toinvest in our children. . . Investing in good early child-hood education is the foundation for successful, healthychildren and a healthy economy. It is also the foundationfor better schools, less juvenile and adult crime, fewerteen pregnancies, smaller welfare rolls, and a better work-force." This business approach to investing in early child-hood embodied a two-part strategy. Hunt and others rec-ognized that they must garner support in the N.C.General Assembly for this legislation's passage. It was alsoclear that the government's resources would never beenough to address the need and that it would take thecombined resources of both public and private sectors tohave any real impact on this societal issue.

Cash Match

To crystallize this need for joint contribution, theLegislature in 1996 put a cash "match" requirement intothe Smart Start legislation, mandating that 20 percent ofhalf the total tax dollars allocated statewide to Smart Start

4u 39

40 C SHARING THE STORIES

had to be met by private dollars. In that fiscal year, itmeant that $5.8 million had to be matched by privatecontributions.

The actual requirement allowed private contributions ineither cash (at least five percent) or "in-kind" (up to15percent) to include volunteer time, donated goods, or likeservices. This match requirement was to be in the aggre-gate of what all local Partnerships in combination withthe state Partnership could raise. As the total Smart Startallocation rose each year from $15 million to $228 mil-lion in 1999-2000, the private match had to keep pace interms of the percentage of tax dollars allocated.

At first, this cash match requirement was met largelythrough corporate contributions to the N.C. Partnershipfor Children (NCPC), Smart Start's state-level organiza-tion. The North Carolina business sectormade up ofbanking, health care, pharmaceutical, and high-tech cor-porationsgave to Smart Start when the Governor asked.And in the first year (FY95/96), more than $9 million incorporate monies flowed into Smart Start earmarked as 5-year and 10-year contributions from the business sector.

NCPC, the umbrella state-level organization for SmartStart, developed a grant-making process enabling theseprivate contributions to be disbursed to local communityprograms through the local Partnerships. To gain access

0,0

to the funds, local Partnerships had to submit grantapplications describing how these private dollars wouldbe used. In addition, local Partnerships raised private dol-lars in their own communities, which could be countedin the aggregate cash match, but used directly for localprograms in their counties.

A Smart Start Performance Program Audit, conducted byCoopers & Lybrand L.L.P. in 1996, found the "cash contri-bution portion of the matching requirement placed on localPartnerships by the General Assembly (to be) inappropri-

ate," saying it was an inequitable and impossible require-ment to meet. The inequities were confirmed in a statepartnership-financed survey of each county's private contri-bution levels in 1996. This survey found that most countieswith high levels of resources were already meeting the

expected level of contribution for that population, whilethose with low resources simply didn't have it to give.

Since United Way organizations in each county alreadyworked closely with local businesses to raise funds forcommunity-based programs, it seemed counterproductiveto ask Smart Start to compete with United Way cam-paigns. Instead, the Coopers & Lybrand Report suggest-ed lowering the percentage of private dollars required atthe local level for the cash match and resulted in somechanges to the legislative language in match requirementsthat then took effect in the following fiscal year 1997/98.

0000

The creation of public-private partnerships in Smart Startcounties was about more than combining public and pri-vate monies. It was also about how volunteer time andcommitment could improve and grow local programs toserve young children and their families. And it fit well with

the vision of Smart Start as a collaborative approach whereall sectors of the community could come together to makeit a better place to raise and educate young children.

In Kind ContributionsIn-kind contributions were made primarily to local Part-nerships, ranging from physicians donating time to giveimmunizations at local children's fairs to dentists offeringfree check-ups to local van services driving children at nocharge to child care centers outside their neighborhoods.

These voluntary donations of professional services did"count" in the match as cash.

The contribution ofand need forvolunteer time wasenormous when Smart Start came into a county. Eventhe grant application process itself involved hundreds ofhours of meetings and information collection. TheCatawba County Partnership, for example, calculatedthat it took 4,550 person-hours to develop their strategicplan and make funding decisions in their first year ofoperation. Early on, many felt that a dollar value shouldbe assigned to these volunteer hours by multiplying eachhour by $10. Across the state, this calculation resulted inthe contribution of millions of dollars of volunteer timeto Smart Start efforts. However, these hours of volunteer

49

LESSON 5: Encourage Public-Private Partnerships Gd 41

time were given no value toward the cash "match"requirement, according to the State Auditor's Office.

Another kind of support came from corporate sponsor-ship of programs to which employees donated time. Oneexcellent example is the volunteer reading program estab-lished by The First Union National Bank, based inCharlotte with branches across the state. They set up aprogram to link bank employees through localPartnerships to child care centers located in the samecommunity as that bank branch. Then bank employeescould spend volunteer time there each week reading toyoung children. Another valuable corporate partner,AT&T, donated funds, equipment, and technical expert-ise to set up a resource hotline which parents call toll-freeto access tips and information on parenting techniquesand strategies.

Leveraged Funds

Another form of the public-private relationship withinSmart Start is the "leveraging" or blending of funds.Leveraged funds were those supporting a local programfrom several different organizations. Each organization oragency might fund a separate component of the samelocal program so that funds were blended together. Forexample, a training program for child care providersmight include CPR training funded by the county healthdepartment, developmental screening techniques fundedby the mental health department, and an early childhooddevelopment course funded by the community college.All these training components might be rolled into a sub-stitute program supported by Smart Start that providedsubstitute care for the children, while the center directoror staff attended training components during the day.Without the "blended" funding from different agencies,the program package would not benefit the provider andoffer an incentive to obtain additional training. Bringingagencies together to figure out how they could "blend"their streams of public funds was a role for Smart Startand resulted in a more efficient use of funds, enabledmore services to be funded, and fostered the collaborativeuse of staff, time, or expertise in programs.

In Cumberland County, the Partnership and the UnitedWay blended their resources to design a public awarenesscampaign. United Way's Success By Six coordinator was

housed in the Partnership's offices where she worked toput out joint messages to the community about the com-bined early childhood programming funded by bothorganizations. In Durham County, Smart Start dollarsfunded the leasing of vans that transported young chil-dren to their Head Start center. And Head Start paid thebus drivers' and bus monitors' salaries, as well as vanmaintenance. Many counties have combined funds fromtheir health and mental health departments with SmartStart dollars to hire staff to coordinate in-home servicesfor at-risk children and families. These leveraged funds

enable families to receive combined services from differ-ent public agencies.

Resource Development

As nonprofit Smart Start Partnerships became establishedin their communities, the expectation to raise private dol-lars locally through resource development arose. Whilethe state Partnership acquired philanthropic dollars fromthose corporations with a statewide presence, there weremany regional or county-based businesses that saw invest-

ment in children and families as a benefit to the commu-nity in which they resided. Fundraising can be moreeffective when conducted locally, since donors there focuson local issues and can see measurable impacts on theiremployees, their neighbors, and their customers. In addi-tion, the actual process of developing resourcesin bothvolunteer time and moneyleads to direct benefits forlocal Partnerships with an increased awareness of earlychildhood development and child care issues in theircommunities.

However, Partnerships faced many challenges in raisingprivate dollars at the local level. One such challenge wascompetition with other community-based organizationsfor limited local dollars to address the same issues.Ironically, the United Way in many counties had beeninstrumental in the start-up of Smart Start Partnerships.Sometimes, they organized and coordinated communityteams to prepare the local grant application. Later, theyprovided interim office space, clerical support, and bridgefunds until a Partnership was incorporated and receivingfunds. But when United Way saw Smart Start try to raisefunds from the business community, organize donorcampaigns, and search for volunteers, they felt a competi-tive, not collaborative, relationship.

50BEST COPY AVAILABLE


Similarly, since local Partnerships were also grant-makingorganizations that funded community-based programsand agencies, they sometimes competed directly for pri-vate funds with the same local programs they supported.To this day, in counties where there is an existing, butseparate, child care resource and referral agency, there isoften community-wide confusion about where to focusthe community's resources to help children.

And here's another dilemma. Smart Start calculated eachcounty's allocation of public funds based upon its popu-lation of children 0-5 years of age. So Partnership organ-izations, especially in the metropolitan areas of the state,were now suddenly the recipients of millions of dollarsfrom the state. Given the size of these allocations, privatedonors in the county were often reluctant to add theircontributions. Foundations and philanthropic individu-als skeptically viewed grant proposals coming to themfrom Smart Start organizations, since these same non-profits were funneling big bucks into local programs. In away, it appeared that Smart Start held a foundation rolein the local community while also seeking grants fromother community, regional, or state foundations.

Since the Smart Start funding formula for each county isboth needs-based and population-driven, the poorer,rural counties with small populations of young childrenhave been unable to attain the level of funding that thelarger, metropolitan counties receive. These very poorcountieswithout major businesses inside their bound-ariessimply do not have the potential to raise privatedollars in the way that the larger, metropolitan countiesdo. Ironically, however, because of the greater needs intheir countiesand the more limited public dollars com-ing in to handle those needsthe smaller, rural, countieshave sometimes been more successful in obtaining phil-anthropic monies. Jones County, a rural, low economiccounty in the eastern part of the state, is a good example.The Partnership there successfully obtained grants fromthe Rosie O'Donnell Foundation, the Kate B. ReynoldsCharitable Trust, and others because the need was greatand the resources minimal.

Another problem sparked by corporate fundraising iscompetition among Partnerships and with the state-levelPartnership. In those counties where major corporations,like Bank of America in Mecklenburg County, or Glaxo

Wellcome Pharmaceuticals in Durham County, weremajor contributors to the state Partnership, the localPartnerships saw them as corporate citizens of that areaand sought community investments from them.

In the middle of the state, the three cities of Chapel Hill,Durham, and Raleigh form a triangle area that containsnumerous high-tech and pharmaceutical corporationswith employees who live and work in all three counties.To avoid a competitive solicitation of the same firms fromeach of the three Partnerships, the three Smart Startorganizations decided to share one resource developmentdirector who made a unified pitch to the Triangle businesscommunity on behalf of children's issues. Even so, thestate Partnership also resides in Raleigh and was solicitingthese same major corporations on behalf of Smart Start.

Local Partnerships faced another challenge: they often didnot have adequate public dollars from Smart Start to sup-port fundraising efforts. Yet, private dollar contributorsdid not want their dollars to be spent funding the admin-istrative costs necessary to perform professional fundrais-ing tasks. Fundraising campaigns require major expendi-tures to maintain donor databases, solicit donors, hostevents, and prepare mailings. And local Partnerships sim-ply are not adequately staffed to handle these time-con-suming activities. The situation is understandablebutproblematic. Foundations want to fund community-based issues and programs that directly impact children.But they don't particularly want to fund a Partnershiporganization's staffing costs to help deliver those funds toother community-based programs. Even though therewere creative and collaborative approaches in the grantrequests, foundations wondered why they didn't directlyfund a community program instead of sending the fundsthrough the local Partnership.

Partnerships also faced the dilemma of expending timeand staff resources to apply for foundation grants; thenwhen they received a grant, there was usually no budgetto support the Partnership's requirements for monitoring,fiscal oversight, or reporting. Regardless of whether thePartnership provides a "pass through" function to garnergrants and funnel funds out to community programsserving children, or serves as the direct provider of a serv-ice for which the grant is awarded, it still has a need foradministrative resources to support these functions.

5

LESSON S: Encourage Public-Private Partnerships ct 43

Finally, unlike board members of other organizations,Smart Start Partnership Boards are not comprised ofmembers who are prepared either to give money or tosolicit others to contribute monies. On a typical nonprof-it board, members know when they accept a boardappointment that they will be expected to contribute

both time and money. Smart Start Partnership Boards,however, have mandated memberships drawn from theranks of public agency directors, child care providers, andparentsindividuals who are not accustomed to givinglarge amounts of money. Instead, these members see theirrole as representatives of community services.

6^ 8 1T it, 1-Y*

^ vo.Ad LESSONS LEARNED

Encourage public-private partnership at both thestate and local levels. If collaboration and partnershipdon't exist at the state level, there are barriers to build-ing relationships at the local level.

Support resource development at the local level.Provide technical assistance and training on grant-writing and fundraising techniques, as well as adminis-trative resources for staffing these efforts.

Mandate the cash match at the state level becausethat is where corporate support is most likelyobtained. There are too many fundraising capacityinequities at the local level to make it feasible toexpect a lot of cash to be raised there.

A cash match is inappropriate for government-

mandated programs because it creates competitionfor resources, instead of fostering collaboration.Incentives for working in partnership with the privatesector are inherent and will occur without mandates.

Involvement of the business community in pro-gram planning is almost more important than theactual dollars they contribute. Getting business to beaware of the impact of early childhood programs ontheir own employees is invaluable and allows for busi-nesses to work on this issue in their own self-interest.

Individual contributions should never be over-looked. Solicitation of members of the communityraises more than moneyit builds awareness of theissues, awareness of your organization, and developsthe buy-in needed for long-term community support.

A STORY FROM DOWN EAST

In the middle of the booming hog industry in eastern

North Carolina lie the two counties of Nash and

Edgecombe. Rocky Mount, the area's major city, is

bisected by a railroad track that puts half the commu-

nity in Nash, half in Edgecombe. Some say the track

divides more than just square miles. For decades, this

two-county community with 11 governing bodies has

had political, social, and economic differences that

have hampered area development and improvement.

Yet out of this history of division came an impressive

model of a public-private partnership called the Down

East Partnership. First, the two chambers of commerce

(one in Rocky Mount for Nash County and one in nearby

Tarrboro for Edgecombe County) determined to look

beyond the past to find ways to work together. At the

same time, another community group focused on how

to improve education in the area, since so many high

school students dropped out or left the area looking for

better jobs. A third group started looking at legal serv-

ices for low-income families under a Ford Foundation

grant. And yet another group studied the need for set-

ting up a child care resource and referral program in

the area under a grant from Project Uplift.

All these discussions came together in 1993 when

Smart Start was announced. As Henrietta Zalkind, now

Executive Director of the Down East Partnership for

Children, likes to say, "We were already around the

table when this initiative came along. We came togeth-

er around a vision for how life could be better for kids

and families in this region, not around money." In

fact, a discussion of how to integrate the two chambers

led to the writing of a joint Smart Start application

BEST COPY AVAILABLE


that was accepted in 1995.

Key to Down East's success was a strong partnership with

the business community. While a largely rural area, both

counties were corporate headquarters for several major

corporations, including fast food chain Hardees and

Centura Bank, a regional institution with branches

throughout the state. Leaders from these and other com-

panies were involved in the early community discussions.

And, remarkably, the Smart Start grant application was

submitted as a two-county proposal. Henrietta Zalkind,

then director of the area's Legal Services agency, co-

chaired the application team with Rusty HoLderness, an

influential entrepreneur whose family goes way back in

this area. She remembers that, "We had already decid-

ed that this was going to be a two-county thing. We

went back and forth a Little bit about that decision,

but people were convinced it was the right way to go

even though we had to fight with the state at first tosubmit a multi-county proposal to Smart Start."

The first application submitted was not funded in the

first round. In hindsight, says Henrietta, the denial

"turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to

us, because we were already together. People really had

been building relationships throughout the application

process, working together across class lines, across coun-

ty lines, and across economic lines. And there was a

meeting after we found out we didn't get it and people

started saying how we needed to go forward anyway."

So the group continued to meet, set up its own non-

profit organization, and proceeded to develop a strate-

gic plan, hire staff, and build child care resource and

referral services. They also developed a plan for

fundraising. And they obtained a family preservation

grant, a community block grant to establish child care

resource and referral services, and went into the com-

munity to listen to what parents and children needed.

While still holding down full-time jobs, members of this

remarkable group worked out of office space donated by

a local law firm and maintained the vision for children

throughout the two-county area.

When it came time for the loose-knit organization to

file papers for incorporation, Henrietta relates, "The

wife of Centura Bank's CEO went home one night and

told her husband we needed $500 for this wonderful

community effort. The next day he sent us a check to

support the legal filing costs."

The next year, they again submitted an application for

Smart Start; it was accepted in 1995. So this initial

group gave life to the Down East Partnership for

Children. Soon, they purchased an empty, rundown

YMCA building where families from both counties could

receive services. With a combination of Smart Start dol-

lars and sizeable corporate donations, especially from

Centura Bank, they renovated the building to serve as a

family resource center and to house satellite offices for

both counties' departments of health and department of

social services. Then, with a foundation grant, they

established a model child care center where child care

providers are trained by watching skilled interaction

between children and teachers though a one-way glass

mirror. In addition, Hardees donated money and equip-

ment to build a model playground, since the building is

in a poor neighborhood with few facilities.

Today, the building also houses offices for the

Partnership, the child care resource and referral agency,

a parent resource library, a resource lending room for

child care providers, and a community meeting center.

Clearly, it has become a focal point for child care

issues, a central meeting place for parents and child

care providers, and a community center for meetings

and get-togethers.

In the last two years, Down East has been conducting a

capital campaign to raise more private dollars to support

early childhood services. Building upon their strong rela-

tionship with local business, they hired a consultant to

plan and implement a donor campaign reaching beyond

county lines called "For Every Child." They expect to raise

nearly $1 million. These dollars will help fund programs

during those periods between grant cycles and in unex-

pected emergencies. A capital campaign makes sense for

this region for a variety of reasons. The need is great, the

relationship with major businesses is strong, and the new

Family Resource Center is an effective central location for

the delivery of services.

1

LESSON

4, 4r

Create ComprehensiveEarly Childhood Services

' 0 074

Developing early childhood services at the local com-munity level is the heart and soul of Smart Start.

From the beginning, the dream was to build a compre-hensive system of quality child care, child health, andfamily support services to meet the needs of young chil-dren and their families. Early framers of Smart Start rec-ognized that a single model of services would not work inNorth Carolina. One size would not fit all communi-tiesthe diversity and disparity among counties was toogreat to overcome with a single approach.

In the most rural parts of the state, for instance, the earlychildhood infrastructure is very undeveloped, often to thepoint of providing no services at all. Some counties mayhave only two or three child care providers and pediatri-cians and dentists are scarce. Families often live in isolat-ed, remote, and inaccessible areas. Surprisingly, highrates of child poverty and limited economic and employ-ment opportunities mark a full two thirds of NorthCarolina's one hundred counties.

In contrast, more populated and metropolitan countiesincluding Mecklenburg County, the Triangle andPiedmont areasenjoy stronger economies, low povertyrates, and an infrastructure of early childhood services.Even here, though, these services are often fragmented,low quality, and under funded with long waiting lists.

As a result of these contrasts, local Partnerships were cre-ated so that individual communities would plan anddevelop their own services. In essence, as the architectsand construction team of these services, they were free toformulate, and bring to life, their own vision to meettheir communities' unique needs. Local Partnershipswould function somewhat like foundations that use statedollars to make grants to worthy community programs.Their greatest purpose was to facilitate collaboration,convening and developing community partners to devel-op effective services for young children and their families.

In the first two years of Smart Start, state administratorsat both the Division of Child Development and the N.C.Partnership for Children put their faith in the wisdom oflocal communities to determine what was needed. Onlylater did legislative mandates establish that 70 percent offunds be spent on "child care related activities," leaving30 percent for such other services as child health andfamily support. The N.C. Partnership then developedguidelines about "core services" that were appropriate forSmart Start funding which began the process of statescrutiny and direction about local service design. Manylocal Partnerships believed that this change detractedfrom the local autonomy they had been promised. Stillothers felt that it clarified the original purpose of SmartStart and focused local decision making.

45

46 Q SHARING THE STORIES

State leaders took this action to mandate expendituresbecause the founding Smart Start legislation was unclearabout what specific services were intended and indicatedonly a laundry list of possible types of services. For somepeople, the lack of agreement about what was needed inearly childhood education justified the position that localPartnerships should retain autonomy over service design.Consequently, tension existed between child care expertswho had originally advocated for a single focus on build-ing a comprehensive system of quality, affordable childcare and those who saw Smart Start as having a broaderpurpose to serve all young children and their families by

0 A 0

To Provide Services or Not

building collaborative communities. Without guidance,early childhood education/child care would often be pit-ted against child health or family support as legitimateexpenditures for Smart Start.

This tension would play out in later years as well, espe-cially in the first three years of Smart Start. LocalPartnerships that viewed local control and a comprehen-sive mission as their operating principles would findthemselves in direct conflict with state authorities whoincreasingly defined the mission of Smart. Start as earlychildhood/child care education.

0 0 0 0

Each Partnership wrestled with one key question: shouldit be a direct service provider or remain solely the admin-istrator of Smart Start resources? This question tookshape early on in the local Partnership's development andassessment of the existing early childhood infrastructure.The answer would ultimately have great impact on its rolein the community and the configuration of local services.

From the beginning, some Partnerships viewed them-selves only as administrators of Smart Start resources,with the purpose of first planning and developing earlychildhood services, then funding others to deliver them.Other Partnerships, mostly those located in rural areas,opted to develop and implement services themselves.Generally, this occurred when no community agencieswere willing or able to partner to develop needed servic-esor when the quality of their services was consideredinadequate. In some instances, Partnerships vieweddelivering services as a way to create a purpose for them-selves in the community and fulfill their mission.

For all Partnerships, though, there was a great need toidentify key supporters to help develop the early childhoodsystem. Most often, these lead supporters included childcare resource and referral agencies, the public schools, par-ents and health departments. They served in a variety ofimportant ways from identifying the need for new services,to developing new and innovative services, to becomingpart of the community team in building comprehensiveand integrated services for young children and families.

To effectively harness the energy of these communitysupporters, the local Partnership took a leading role incommunity planning and facilitating collaborationamong agencies and services providers. ManyPartnerships have used recognized community develop-ment strategies such as task forces and special work ses-sions to identify needs and resources and involve thecommunity directly in the planning of services. In addi-tion, consultants with facilitation and strategic planningexpertise are often hired by local Partnerships to promotedialogue among community agencies and foster "systems-change" thinking to improve the service delivery systemfor young children and their families.

For most Partnerships, however, administrative resourcesare not adequate to fully support these community devel-

opment efforts while meeting their mandated accountingand contracting responsibilities. One key reason is thatthe original Smart Start legislation limited administrativedollars to a lean eight percent of the total service budget.Since planning and community development functionsthat support service delivery must also come from theadministrative allocation, Partnerships have faced signifi-cant challenges in assuming these multiple roles.

Partnering with Community Service Providers

The Value of Child Care Resource and Referral

The North Carolina child care system is plagued by ahost of seemingly intractable problemspoor quality, lowwages, limited benefits, high turnover, inadequate supply,

LESSON 6: Create Comprehensive Early Childhood Services 3 47

and lack of transportation and other child and familysupport services. To address these issues, most communi-ties needed the services of an agency that was dedicatedto improving the quality and affordability of child care.The original Smart Start legislation recognized this needand designated funds for child care resource and referralservices. Every local Partnership was encouraged to devel-op these services to support the development of the childcare system. As anticipated, child care resource and refer-ral agencies proved to be invaluable partners in buildingthe child care system at the local level.

In Orange County, for example, Child Care ServicesAssociation (CCSA) was a key link to the child care com-munity. They quickly identified the providers, assessedthe quality of each program, andsince they already hadrelationships with the providerseffectively encouragedtheir participation in Smart Start.

Moreover, CCSA's analysis of the low wages paid tochild care providers, with the correspondingly highturnover rate, was the basis for the Partnership's fundingof the W.A.G.E.$ project, which awards child care teach-ers supplemental wages as incentives to keep teachers inthe field and pursue higher education. Because of itssuccess, the W.A.G.E.$ project is now being replicatedthrough the state. According to Michele Rivest,Executive Director of the Orange County Partnershipfor Young Children, "We couldn't operate without theleadership and assistance of CCSA. Thanks to them, wewere able to focus on building our organizational capaci-ty and grant process, while CCSA took the lead in work-ing with the child care community to build the childcare system."

Chatham County's CCR&R, called Child Care Networks,was already closely connected to the local department ofsocial services and had assumed responsibility for manag-

ing the child care subsidy system. This is very unusual inNorth Carolina where departments of social services havehistorically administered federal and state child care subsi-dies. However, Chatham's public/private partnership hasbeen recognized as a model because it is vital in reachingout to all populations of the community. For example,

when Smart Start resources were available, they were put to

use right away to help expand the subsidy system to meetthe needs of children on the waiting list and the increas-ing Latino population. This was something which mostlocal social service departments had been unable to dobecause of state and county regulations and resources.

Parents as Partners in Developing Family SupportServices

Prior to Smart Start, family support services were largelyprovided by public social services and mental healthagencies, yet often lacked a specific focus on young chil-dren and families. To bridge this gap, local Partnershipsoften turned to parents for help in developing new servic-es. Through focus groups, surveys, and even door-to-dooroutreach, parents were asked directly what services fami-lies needed to better care for and support their children.This direct approachthat is, of finding parents throughoutreach strategies and serving them where they arehasbecome the hallmark of local Partnership efforts. SinceSmart Start, the family support system has expanded intothe homes of families, public housing communities, andcommunity churches.

"It became obvious to me that we could count the num-ber of children in preK and the three child care centers inour county. I wanted to know where the other 700 chil-dren listed in the population census were," says SharonLord, the Executive Director in Jones County.Unraveling this puzzle helped drive the development offamily support services in Jones County where, as Lorddiscovered, the majority of new parents remained athome to take care of their young children. So theyweren't using child care programs.

In response, her Partnership developed a community out-reach program that included a team of early childhood,health, and mental health professionals who providedhome visits to the family of every newborn child in thecounty. This was not only a much needed service, but itgave the Partnership incredible access to informationabout the status of children and the needs of families.Lord told the home visit teams, "Let the parents definewhat it is that we can do for them, keeping in the back ofyour mind what you believe would be really important tohelp them nurture or educate their child."

r3


Child Health Partners

One of the key goals of Smart Start is that children arriveat school healthy. Local Partnerships have been very cre-ative in addressing this goal. Working with area healthdepartments, hospitals, and other agencies, localPartnerships have funded a variety of immunization pro-grams, development screenings, health education, andoutreach efforts, including mobile health vans not typi-cally provided by traditional providers.

One gap that drew concern statewide was the lack ofdental care for children. Through creative alliancesbetween local Partnerships and dental care providers,however, a number of solutions have been put intoplace. In Burke County, for instance, the localPartnership pulled together private dentists and thepublic health department to create a new clinic to pro-vide free dental services and public education. OrangeCounty has developed a program staffed by the healthdepartment and the University of North Carolina atChapel Hill's Dental School in which dental studentsprovide screenings to thousands of children each year.And in Region A, a rural mountainous area that encom-passes seven counties and part of the Cherokee Indianreservation, three new dental clinics for Medicaid-eligi-ble children have been established using a combinationof public and private resources. Prior to Smart Start,not one dental provider accepted Medicaid-eligible chil-dren in this entire 3,500-square-mile-area of westernNorth Carolina.

Other important and creative health programs have suc-ceeded, as well. The Jones County Partnership forChildren used Smart Start funding to build space at thelocal health department so that a visiting pediatriciancould provide well child services for the first time. InForsyth County, a large urban county with many outstand-ing health services, the Partnership brought health careservices to poor communities by establishing special out-reach clinics in which children and families could access avariety of health services for the first time. One effectivestrategy that many Partnerships have used is hiring addi-tional public health nurses to go directly to children inchild care to provide immunization checks and advice andgive the teachers guidance about environmental safety.

Engaging the Public School System

While the public school might seem to be the mostobvious ally, it may often be the most challenging toengage because of its focus on school-age children.However, in North Carolina, public schools tend tobe involved in early childhood services in two mainways: as providers of child care services for three-andfour-year-olds, and as agents responsible for providingmandated services to children with special needs. Inrural areas, public schools may be able to providemuch needed space to develop additional child care.And in urban areas, public schools may already bevery invested in preschool programs for four-year-oldchildren, and may be able to incorporate their servicesas part of the larger early childhood system that SmartStart hopes to build.

In Washington County, a poor rural county withfewer than 14,000 residents, the local Partnership iscollaborating with the school system to ensure that all150 four-year-olds have access to quality preschoolexperiences. And it's working. By combining forces,all children can receive instructional and enrichmentservices, whether in local day care centers or on theschool campus. While the Washington County schoolsystem uses local funds and federal Title One fundingto support the Pre-Kindergarten program, thePartnership contributes Smart Start funds to enhancethe quality of services by reducing the staff/childratios.

In Mecklenburg County, the largest metropolitan areain the state, the local Partnership has developed a col-laborative approach between the school system andexisting child care providers to develop an intensive,high quality program for three- and four-year-olds.Called Bright Beginnings, this program was begun bythe local school system that looked to the Partnershipfor help to expand to more school sites. By facilitatinga broader community dialogue on the need for pre-school programs, the Partnership reoriented the pro-gram to include both the school system and existingchild care programs. As a result, quality care willincrease over time, since child care providers will nowbe required to meet the same high-quality standards

LESSON 6: Create Comprehensive Early Childhood Services 49

mandated by the school system. The supply of childcare has been increased as well. The program nowtakes place in both child care settings and at public

school, supporting both the private and nonprofitchild care systems while strengthening the school sys-tem's involvement in child care.

4522 t '5, '5 t 4222242t2 t5'22,4 ,2

t AT 991.. LESSONS -LEARNED f& *ats a p

as r #+ -`

Within the framework of state goals, allow localdecision-making regarding needed services.The state should set the goals for local Partnershipsearly on to ensure a common vision for the earlychildhood initiative. This will provide a commonframework and ensure an integrated approach at thelocal level. However, although a framework of whattypes of services are allowed with state funding is rec-ommended to guide local planning, decisions aboutwhat specific services are needed and how to imple-ment them is best left to the community level. Localdecision-making creates both buy-in and ownership inthe new services.

Recognize that building the early childhood sys-tem will take sustained commitment and a varietyof strategies.To be effective, the early childhood system mustinclude a focus on child care, child health, and familysupport. Local Partnerships need to look at the bigpicture, so they take a whole systems perspective inassessing what pieces are needed to develop a compre-hensive and integrated approach to developing servic-es for young children and their families. The stateshould facilitate this understanding and developmentthrough training and technical assistance.

Consider carefully whether to provide direct serv-ices or not through the local Partnership.Whether to provide services directly or foster thedevelopment of community services is a monumentaldecision that will significantly shape the role of thelocal Partnership. Local realitiesincluding existinginfrastructure, county resources, and relationshipsbetween community agenciesshould all be weighedin making this decision. Partnerships should be awarethat there are pros and cons to each decision that willimpact the service delivery system, administrative sup-

port, fundraising, and community ownership. TheBoard and the larger community should be activelyinvolved in deciding which path the local Partnershiptakes.

Recruit community partners early on to build acomprehensive early childhood service system.It will take all kinds of partners to build a new sys-tem of early childhood services. For the Partnership,developing effective collaborations will requireinvestments of time to build strong relationships, aswell as strategies and money to develop new pro-grams to fill in service gaps. Community partnerscan bring both types of resources and new ideas tomake services more readily available to more chil-dren in the community.

Involve parents in shaping family support services.Parents know best what is needed for their youngchildren and can pinpoint the barriers to existingservices. Making services relevant and accessible tofamilies guarantees that families will use these servicesto improve their own parenting skills and resources,and that agencies will implement strategies to beresponsive to the needs of families.

Provide extra support to the child care providersusing Child Care Resource and Referral agencies askey leaders.The child care system will require extra care and nur-turing to improve the quality of services, becausemost states, including North Carolina, provide onlyminimal technical assistance through licensing andregulation. While local Partnerships must have acommunity-wide focus, specialized agencies like childcare resource and referral agencies can provide bothadministrative and programmatic support to improvethe quality and affordability of child care.


A STORY FROM ORANGE COUNTY

The top priority of the Orange County Partnership for

Young Children has been to improve the quality of the

child care system. This commitment developed as a

direct result of a report issued by the Child Care

Resources Task Force that examined child care issues in

the early 90s prior to Smart Start. Orange County's

child care, according to this report, is the most expen-

sive in the state, and almost two-thirds of the parents

of young children use some form of regulated child

care. "Their work made it obvious that we had to place

a priority on offering high quality child care to all the

parents and their children," says Anita Daniels, a for-

mer Chair of the Board of Directors.

To do this, the Partnership turned to Child Care Services

Association (the child care resource and referral agency

in the county) to develop multiple, coordinated strate-gies to raise the quality of child care. Sue Russell, the

Executive Director, explains their approach: "We looked

at all the ways to address the problems facing child

care providers and developed strategies to address

those issues. We took a systems approach by looking

at the facilities, the quality of the teachers, the cost of

care, and the child care environments, as well. We

knew we had to find ways to provide incentives by off-

setting the costs, while giving technical support to

help providers take the next step."

The problems of low wages and high turnover led to the

creation of the Child Care W.A.G.E.$ project that awards

child care teachers supplemental wages as incentives to

keep teachers in the field while encouraging higher

education. The high cost of care was also a barrier;

providers simply couldn't make improvements in their

programs without passing on the costs to parents. So

CCSA helped implement a comprehensive scholarship

program for working-poor parents to help them pur-

chase child care, while offering providers higher reim-

bursement rates for achieving higher levels of care.

Another strategy was to offer grants for environmental

improvements, such as playgrounds and inside play

areas. To be eligible to receive these grants, however,

the providers are required to commit to achieving the

next higher level of regulated care. And, through

Project Upgrade, CCSA provides expert consultation from

early childhood specialists, offers free training, delivers

substitutes while child care teachers work on their edu-

cation, and provides support teams for child care direc-

tors striving to achieve national child care accreditation.

"You can't underestimate the value of the support sys-

tem that CCSA provides both the child care community

and the Partnership," notes Michele Rivest, Executive

Director of the Orange County Partnership. She credits

CCSA with delivering solid technical assistance that

includes mentoring and peer consultation to support

child care providers in what is often a long-term com-

mitment to building quality child care. "Child care

providers know they don't have to go it alone. CCSA is

there to guide them each step of the way," Rivest adds.

Have these new programs made a difference?

Absolutely. "Parents see the difference Smart Start has

made every day in our program," asserts Melissa

Mishoe, Director of Wee Care Child Care in Chapel Hill.

"Originally, we had our infant care program in the same

building with all of the children and it just wasn't what

we wanted for the babies." With Smart Start resources,

infant care has been relocated to a building designed

especially for babies and toddlers. Local Head Start

Director Patsy Byrd adds, "Smart Start made it possible

for our teachers to go back to school, and all our class-

rooms have been upgraded to meet national accredita-

tion. Smart Start and Head Start are a great team."

Before Smart Start, Orange County had only three

nationally accredited child care programs; today there

are seventeen. Before Smart Start, there were no

accredited family child care homes, and now there are

seven. Today, over two-thirds of all preschool children

are in higher quality care in Orange County, thanks to

Smart Start resources and the dedication of so many

child care providers. "I think we are well on our way

to ensuring that when Orange County's children arrive

at first grade, they will be ready to continue to be suc-

cessful," notes Anita Daniels. "It's been worth it

because the children are worth it."

59

LESSON 6: Create Comprehensive Early Childhood Services L 51

A STORY FROM BURKE COUNTY AND DOWN EAST

Here are two different Partnership perspectives on therationale for providing services directly or facilitatingservice delivery.

According to Angela Deal, Executive Director of the

Burke County Partnership for Children, For us it was agood decision to remain an administrative agency. We

already had service providers who were willing to con-

tract to offer their services, with both public and pri-

vate agencies willing to step up to the table." From

the beginning, the Burke Partnership Board recognized

the importance of building a broad base of support and

used the lure of resources to create a collaborative

community. They also believed that Smart Start

resources would best be located in such community

agencies as the local Department of Social Services and

the Health Department. Because these agencies viewed

their roles as partners and contributors, they did not

charge the Partnership for administrative costs.

Bolstered by this level of community support, the

Partnership decided its focus would be on supporting

the development of other agencies to develop high

quality services, and to identify and fill gaps in theservice delivery system. "From the beginning, it was

key for us to involve a broad constituency. Businesses,

churches, parents-they were all involved from the

beginning, and that continues today," notes Deal.

"What we've given them is a handle, a place to grab

onto, to help children and families."

Deal takes pride in the fact that the Partnership is

broadly recognized-thanks to its countywide plan-as

the entity that serves as a community clearinghouse for

early childhood services. She notes, "We are seen as

the organization that knows what the issues are, has

some resources and can access others, and is interested

in working with still others to get services developed

for young children."

By contrast, the Down East Partnership is located in a

rural area with little early childhood infrastructure. In

fact, the Partnership itself emerged from a planningeffort facilitated by local business leaders to developchild care resource and referral services and other com-munity planning efforts. These efforts focused on thecommunity's vision for how life could be better for allchildren and families.

When it was denied Smart Start funding in the firstround, the Down East Partnership incorporated as anonprofit and located other resources that enabled

them to implement selected services that had alreadybeen identified as critical, such as child care resourceand referral services and family preservation programs.

The original Board of the Down East Partnership

planned to take on two formidable tasks: to provideleadership in the development of quality services andthen to implement model programs. According to.Executive Director Henrietta Zalkind, "We had a visionfor what our role in the community would be and whatwe wanted to accomplish. We made a decision, evenbefore Smart Start, to run programs that we considered

essential because we thought the Partnership would be

sure to develop excellent services, which is what thisarea needed."

For the Down East Partnership, program excellence and

local leadership were key reasons to get involved at theservice delivery level. The Partnership helped set thestandard for other community agencies based on its owndemonstrated ability to run programs well. Today, one ofthe hallmarks of their success is the co-location in arefurbished building of comprehensive services. Parents

can stop by to find out about child care services and

sign up for child care subsidies. At the same site, theycan explore family support services, including parenting

programs. Their children can play on a "model" play-

ground that also serves as a showcase for safe and cre-

ative environments for young children. Because of itsefforts, the Partnership is widely recognized now as amodel for strengthening community by building an

infrastructure of services for young children and fami-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE60

LESSON

Measure for Successfrom the Start

.4 dr. 4iz 4. 44 0,40? *91,. .8 4 44

# i "

0 0 0...° * 3- -* 4, a * 4 * 4. 4 J,

A

From the beginning, evaluating the effectiveness ofSmart Start has been critically important at both the

state and local levels to engage community support anddocument the program's accomplishments. Whileaccountability for public funds and program results hasbeen one of the hallmarks of Smart Start, developing acomprehensive evaluation strategy has been challenging.Although everyone agrees that the broad purpose ofSmart Start remains to ensure that "every child arrives atschool healthy and ready to succeed," measuring that goalremains elusive and, at times, controversial.

Some state legislators expected immediate results in thefirst year of Smart Start, while others recognized that itwould be several years before proof was seen in the kinder-

garten population. To make matters more complicated,each local Partnership has its own service delivery strategy

and counties have phased into Smart Start over a five-yearperiod. Given these various program strategies and the dif-ferent timeframes for program development, it has beenvery difficult to compare program results across the state.

Recognizing these challenges, state leaders devised variousevaluation strategies, and required local Partnerships tofocus on evaluation as well. To allow for the inherentdiversity of the local Partnerships and the bottom-up

approach to designing services, the first Board of theN.C. Partnership for Children generated five global goalsthat were then distributed to local Partnerships as aframework to measure local success. Each Partnership wasrequired to use these goals as an organizing template inthe annual plans they submitted for funding.

In addition, their application for Smart Start funds hadto contain evaluation measures for each proposed activity.This strategy forced local Partnerships to think "results"and to involve their community agencies in evaluationplans right from the beginning. It also provided a sharedmethod for collecting consistent data across counties on aquarterly basis. These data have been very useful in por-traying the types of services and the numbers of childrenand families who are benefiting from Smart Start.

Smart Start leaders also recognized that evaluating theimpact of Smart Start was essential to the initiative'sfuture. So they included funding for a statewide evalua-tion in the original Smart Start legislation. The FrankPorter Graham (FPG) Child Development Centertheresearch and development arm of the University of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill that focuses on early childhoodeducationhas been conducting the Smart Start statewideevaluation since 1994.

6153


Initially, the FPG evaluation design involved only thefirst 12 Partnerships as participants in what has becomean ongoing study. In 1995, FPG created a kindergartenreadiness tool and established baseline data for all existingPartnerships. Using a random sample approach, FPGcollects data every two years on the "readiness" andhealth status of kindergartners entering the public school.These data are used to measure progress over time anddemonstrate long-term success.

FPG has also regularly assessed the improvement in thequality of child care services at the local level based onnational research showing the link between quality childcare for young children and long-term benefits. Withthe involvement of various Partnerships, FPG has con-ducted numerous cross sectional studies to look at certainaspects of Smart Start such as parent involvement andinteragency collaboration. So there is a multi-facetedapproach to evaluating Smart Start.

Evaluation at the local level is equally important and hasbeen supported and encouraged by state officials in vari-ous ways. Through Frank Porter Graham, most first yearPartnerships had the benefit of part-time evaluation staffwho were hired by FPG, but often placed directly intothe Partnerships. This sent a signal of the vital impor-tance of including evaluation as a central function of thelocal Partnership's organizational capacity. Partnershipsare encouraged by the North Carolina Partnership forChildren (NCPC) to have evaluation capacity and areallowed to use either their administrative or service allo-cations for this purpose. NCPC also provides program-matic support and technical assistance to local

Partnerships in designing their evaluation strategies.

In spite of this emphasis from NCPC, evaluation strate-gies are neither integrated nor standardized across thestate. In fact, there are as many different strategies asthere are local Partnerships. While this variety enablesPartnerships to measure according to their needs, inter-ests, and resources, it has prevented the compilation ofcollective results. To this day, the state and local evalua-tion strategies remain two separate processes. Unfor-tunately, this leaves local Partnerships without a clearroad map for evaluation, since there is no universal agree-ment about which child and family outcomes to aim foror what the right measures are for "school readiness."Consequently, there is no county-level baseline data fromwhich to measure progress across the state in later years.

This may be changing. In 1998, the NCPC providedleadership by developing statewide performance stan-dards, and required local Partnerships to use these in theservice plans for FY 1999-2001. Each program wasrequired to describe specific outcomes for young childrenand families that would be accomplished during the nexttwo years. A team of evaluators and Partnerships has beenhard at work analyzing these plans and identifying thekey indicators that all Partnerships could use to assesstheir performance locally. The foundation may now existto build a comprehensive outcome-based evaluation. Tothe extent that these outcomes can be truly evaluatedlocally and reported to the NCPC, state leaders may soonbe able to both describe and document what Smart Startis accomplishing for young children and their familiesacross North Carolina.

5.

While Frank Porter Graham continues to provide theleadership on statewide evaluation results, localPartnerships have focused on evaluating their own pro-grams to demonstrate successful outcomes. Ultimately,the ability to provide meaningful and effective services isthe key to success for Smart Start. To help measureprogress, each local Partnership has hired either a full- orpart-time evaluation staff personor contracted this func-tion out to professional evaluators, often associated witharea universities.

Local Partnerships recognize that evaluation is necessaryto measure the effectiveness of individual programs, butit is also viewed as part of their overall program monitor-ing and program development oversight. In this regard,Partnerships often provide considerable training andtechnical assistance to increase the evaluation capacity ofthe agencies they fund. Most of these human serviceagencies have had little training or experience in measur-ing the effectiveness of their services. Some of theseagencies may not even have the capacity to handle the

LESSON 7: Measure for Success from the Start 55

various Smart Start reporting requirements. Most areresistant to investing their resources in evaluation whenthey see their work as direct services. As a result, localPartnerships must be able to build the capacity of com-munity agencies to develop data collection and evaluationstrategies. When agencies develop a solid evaluationplan and internal capacity, program evaluation thenbecomes a tool that can be used to guide program devel-opment and improve performance.

Perhaps the most complex evaluation issue for localPartnerships is the dual role that many of their communi-ty agencies playthat is, as both Board members andgrantees. So when grantees are deemed responsible forprogram failures or even non-performance, localPartnerships may be placed in exceedingly awkward posi-tions. In the words of one Executive Director, "I amsupervising my employersthe Board membersand thatis a hard road to travel."

Because of this dilemma, many Partnerships rely on out-side evaluators who hold independent contracts to ensurethat the evaluation of a local activity is bias-free.Large Partnerships located in more urban areas haveaccess to university-level evaluators or may have theresources to purchase consulting services from specializedfirms. In these cases, they are often able to go beyondindividual program evaluation to conduct complex needsassessments, community-level evaluations and even longi-tudinal research studies of school readiness of childrenentering kindergarten. For example, The CumberlandCounty Partnership has employed an evaluation consult-ant from the beginning. While individual program eval-uation is essential according to its Executive Director, EvaHansen, conducting special evaluation studies is equallyimportant. The Cumberland Partnership recently com-pleted a random survey of over 10,000 households withyoung children to assess their needs and interests, and todocument their familiarity with Smart Start.

One of the most typical uses of outside evaluation con-sultants is for community needs assessment. The RegionA Partnership has also used an outside evaluation firm toconduct a community-wide needs assessment every fiveyears. This study provides an ongoing baseline andassessment about the needs facing children and families.Similarly, the Orange County Partnership for Young

Children joined with other community agencies and localgovernments in contracting with the area United Wayagency to conduct a community needs assessment. Thestudy was actually conducted by a state university andincorporated random telephone surveys, key informantinterviews, and focus groups.

While these types of studies are valuable, Partnershipshave most often concentrated on demonstrating the effec-tiveness of the programs they are funding in their owncounties. Local evaluation is necessary to ensure that localPartnerships have the capacity to monitor program per-formance and comply with state level reporting require-ments. Many Partnerships have evaluators on staff withgraduate or doctorate level expertise to train partneringagencies in self-evaluation and all aspects of data collec-tions and analysis. This approach can often be less intimi-dating, as well as less expensive. Chatham County hasemployed a part-time evaluation coordinator who hasworked intensively with their Smart Start-funded agenciesto develop their data collection capacity. Grantees submitthe data to the Partnership, which in turn compiles andanalyzes the data and generates reports for the Board ofDirectors, as well as for the N.C. Partnership forChildren. In a small, rural county, this type of evaluationsupport is essential; "without it local grantees would beunable to document their effectiveness," according to theChatham County Partnership's program evaluator.

While the local Partnerships have typically focused exclu-sively on their own interests or programs, there are someinstances of Partnerships joining forces to documentresults across counties. Kindergarten readiness is one sucharea. In an effort to measure the impact of Smart Start onachieving the goal of ensuring that children arrive atschool healthy and ready to succeed, local Partnershipsjoined with Frank Porter Graham to conduct a specialstudy. The Mecklenburg County Partnership and theOrange County Partnership were the first to develop thistype of study, which has shown positive results.

In the summer of 1998, six diverse Partnerships repre-senting urban and rural counties as well as different yearsof Smart Start, undertook a similar study in an effort toreplicate the findings from Mecklenburg and Orange.This study was designed to determine whether childrenwho attended child care centers that participated in

56 LT SHARING THE STORIES

Smart Start quality improvement efforts have better skillswhen they enter kindergarten. Partnerships from Burke,Cumberland, Chatham, Durham, Forsyth, and PersonCounties identified 214 children who had participated incenters that received multiple Smart Start enhancements,including safety and quality improvement grants, on-sitetechnical assistance, and education scholarships. Thesechildren were assessed when they entered kindergarten

using the same instrument, "The Kindergarten ReadinessChecklist." Findings from this study indicated that thesechildren showed better cognitive and language skills, andhad fewer behavioral problems when they entered kinder-garten, regardless of county residence. These types ofstudies are extremely valuable for showing how SmartStart is succeeding across counties throughout the state.

Agree on a common goal, or set of goals, as quicklyas possible.Knowing what is important to measure keeps bothstate leaders and local Partnerships focused in theirevaluation efforts, and helps create a mechanism forfunding programs that are results-oriented. It also

sends a very clear message to state leaders and commu-nities about the importance of early childhood and therelevance of the initiative.

Decide on common outcomes that can be describedat both the state and local level.While this may be difficult, Smart Start would havebenefited from having a joint set of outcomes thatboth the state and local leaders could mutuallydescribe and embrace. The lack of a common visionhas made it impossible to develop and measure shared,common outcomes across Partnerships.

Develop, right from the beginning, evaluationcapacity at the state and local level.Evaluation is expensive, so these resources must bebuilt in at both the state and local level. And evalua-tion should not be an afterthought; rather, it shouldbe built into the design of the program. If evaluationis to be organized at the community level, then eachlocal Partnership must have equal capacity andresources to conduct program evaluations. The origi-nal Frank Porter Graham strategy of employing evalu-ators in the local Partnerships provided a strong evalu-ation foundation.

Promote shared state/local evaluation strategies tomaximize the case for success.Smart Start has used a parallel evaluation strategy atthe state and local level. Although the state-level eval-uation has been able to document Smart Start's suc-cess, local Partnerships could be contributing muchmore to the state-level evaluation, if the resources wereintegrated.

Build local capacity in setting community-leveloutcomes and individual program outcomes.While a state-level strategy is essential, localPartnerships must develop their own community-leveloutcomes to gain community buy-in and participa-tion. Further, each funded program must be requiredto develop individual outcomes. This promotesaccountability at the local level that is essential tostatewide success. This approach, however, requiresintensive, sustained technical assistance and training tobe effective.

Create a network of evaluation resources that sharecommon methodology and support local effortsand costs.Diversity in styles and approaches is important tobuilding local capacity. However, a comprehensiveevaluation that is centrally organized would providegreater consistency of data collection and statewideanalysis, and would be more cost-effective and effi-cient than if each Partnership designs and builds itsown system.

64

LESSON 7: Measure for Success from the Start is 57

Recognize that the best defense when a program failsto meet its outcomes is a strong evaluation system.At the local level, building a strong evaluation systemis essential for program development. When a pro-gram wanders off course or fails to meet its objectives,a solid evaluation will allow the local Partnership towithstand community politicking over local initiatives.It also gives the local Partnership an objective way toassess program implementation and achievements.

Outcomes should be child-focused, not service-focused, to generate greater community interestand buy-in.Community leaders and the general public are mostinterested in results for children and families. Thedocumented success of local programs to improve thelives of children gives communities the confidence tosupport and invest locally.

A STORY FRONI FORSYTH COUNTY

External consultantsusually associated with a universi-

ty or a firm specializing in evaluationcan provide a

wealth of expertise and skill development. Typically,

local Partnerships need additional capacity in teaching

agencies with which they contract how to develop

measurable outcomes. All too often, since the agencies

Lack these skills, they aren't capable of reporting data

that are reliable and useful for evaluation purposes.

In Forsyth County, the Partnership contracts with Rita

O'Sullivan & Assoc., a firm affiliated with the University

of North Carolina at Greensboro. According to Dean

Clifford, the Partnership's Executive Director, "This

approach gives us credibility because it provides an

independent viewpoint. It also gives us access to a

wider range of institutions, evaluation methods, and

developments in the field than we could ever have with

just a single staff person leading our evaluation

efforts." Currently, O'Sullivan is providing technical

assistance to each program on evaluation strategies, as

well as conducting special evaluation studies on school

readiness, agency collaboration, and improvements in

child care providers and children participating in Smart

Start programs. "Using outside consultants brings a

special focus and a greater consistency to our evalua-

tion efforts," claims Clifford.

In 1999, the Partnership funded more than 35 different

activities and evaluating all these programs is an enor-

mous challenge. O'Sullivan has provided intensive tech-

nical assistance with the Partnership's community agen-

cies to develop viable evaluation plans and strategies.

Through workshops and one-on-one technical assis-

tance, community agencies learn how to assess their

programs and build in-house data collection and analy-

sis into their daily work with children and families.

Then, at the annual "Evaluation Fair," agencies share

their results. This approach reinforces the skills of the

entire group, while building peer evaluation networks

in agencies working in child care or family support

areas. It is also a very cost-effective method of build-

ing capacity among local agencies and fosters collabo-

ration in program development, as well.

Naturally, the Partnership's program and funding com-

mittees use the results of these evaluations to make

important decisions about which activities to fund and

expand. To hear results from the grantees firsthand,

Board members and funding committee members attend

the "Evaluation Fair." Evaluation summaries are also

sent out to the community to share the program

results. "Because of this process, we're more able than

ever to direct our resources to those programs which

are producing important and exciting results for young

children and farbilies," reports Clifford.

For the Forsyth Partnership, evaluation is a team effort.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

t35


O'Sullivan brings her team's considerable evaluation

resources and even outstations a consultant for 30

hours a week in the Partnership's office to ensure

close coordination. The Partnership's program staff

works directly with the evaluation team and the com-

munity agencies to develop meaningful evaluation

plans and strategies. Ultimately, it's the community

agencies that must develop effective programs for

children and families. Now they have a way to

describe their accomplishments. "We've given them

the tools to document their success and to show that

Smart Start is working in our community," states

Clifford.

For this Executive Director, evaluation has been the key

to showing that Smart Start is working, both locally

and statewide. It has given them the research to prove

beyond a doubt that young children and families of

Forsyth County are benefiting from the many programs

available because of Smart Start.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

66

strategy to reach a wider audience and engender a com-munity spirit.

Reporting in the Local Press

Using the local newspaper to showcase the work of thelocal Partnership is a very effective communications tactic.Several rural Partnerships, including Stanley, Rutherford,and Robeson County Partnerships, have developed specialanniversary or regular newspaper inserts that documenttheir work and promote various activities and accomplish-ments. In those areas with only one daily or weekly news-paper, an insert is highly visible and effective in reachinghundreds of people in the community. Editorials or occa-sional columns by either the Executive Director or Boardleaders have also been featured in various papers through-out the state, reinforcing both the expertise of thePartnership in early childhood issues, while providinganother opportunity to educate the community.

Special Events

Special events are often used by local Partnerships toreach large numbers of people in the community.

In Ashe County, a small rural county tucked away inthe northeast corner of the state, the annual Christmasparade presents an ideal opportunity for communityawareness of the Partnership and Smart Start. Eachyear, the Partnership organizes a community floatdesigned by local child care providers, with children at

the heart of the theme. Last year, teachers read the chil-dren's story "The Night Before Christmas" to childrenin their pajamas listening attentively to every word.

The Cumberland County Partnership for Childrenorganized the "Smart Start Expo" as an annual show-case for various local Smart Start activities. Open tothe public, The Expo is organized by volunteers andenables area vendors to promote their early childhoodservices. Hundreds of visitors attend each year.

The "Week of the Young Child" is a national effort topromote early childhood developed by the NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children.During this week, to take advantage of national press,the Wake County Partnership organizes a communityfestival that attracts over 5,000 parents and communi-

ty mII

Villal

care

activ

prow'

local

theeven

ty mcom

Comm

Holdinggoals: fi

those wsecond,

with theofficials

Every ye

annualcelebrat

to "mocence toare heldlocal still

comma

Outre4

Reach ir

them inwhen tvariety

assistan

port opYoung

or IntelWake C

local Uinformtheir dhas thePartnerhood e

Other 1

summe

(3 9

L ESSON

Marketing is a Must

Gaining public support and confidence in any newinitiative is vital to its future survival. Public aware-

ness is the first step in building support, so marketingand communication are essential tools that must be usedat both the state and local levels. From the beginning,Smart Start generated incredible media attention becauseGovernor Jim Hunt was its champion, and he proclaimedits importance in every public forum in which he partici-pated. In addition, during the early years of Smart Start,Governor and Mrs. Hunt visited all of the Partnerships,creating a tremendous sense of excitement and momen-tum for this new early childhood initiative.

In part because the Governor was such a public champi-on, no separate statewide public awareness campaignabout the importance of early childhood or Smart Startwas ever planned. Although many people believed that astatewide campaign was essential, state leaders were hesi-tant for many reasons. What single message could cap-ture the diversity of strategies being developed? ShouldSmart Start be labeled a child care initiative or a commu-nity collaboration for all young children and their fami-lies? Could a marketing effort actually backfire? Shouldpublic funds be used to support a marketing campaign?

Perhaps the real reason a statewide marketing campaignwas never pursued was political opposition. Some state

0 II

leaders in the early days thought using Smart Start fundsto broadcast the success of the program was political orotherwise inappropriate. Specifically, politicians opposedto Smart Start said it was unfair for the Governor to pro-mote Smart Start with state dollars, since any mediaactivity would essentially be used as a re-election cam-paign strategy. Others believed all funding should be ded-icated to local services for children and families. In fact,when one local Partnership developed a comprehensivemedia campaign in the same market as the capital, theN.C. Partnership quickly moved to terminate funding toavoid any appearance of promoting Smart Start with statefunds. In so doing, they gave local Partnerships the clearmessage that no Smart Start funds were to be used forpublic awareness activitiesno ad campaigns, not even T-shirts for community volunteers.

Although funding the promotion of Smart Start was con-sidered off-limits, the N. C. Partnership for Children(NCPC) worked diligently to support local Partnerships intheir communication efforts, and has actively encouragedlocal storytelling about Smart Start activities and sucrecses.

For instance, NCPC early on hired a director of communi-cations and public affairs who collected a tool kit of samplepress releases, fact sheets, newsletters, and promotional

materials for other Partnerships to adapt to their commu-nities. The NCPC now also distributes a statewide

6 7 59

60 0 SHARING THE STORIES 62 0 SHARING THE STORIES

newsletter, "The Smart Start Times," and coordinates corn- help edumunications through an advisory committee of local about iss

Partnerships and public relations experts who have volun- commun

teered to help shape NCPC communication strategies. each Parreach all

Recently, NCPC adopted the national "I Am Your also pave

Child" campaign and is working with private corpora- ing addii

tions to develop public awareness materials for parents as public/panother strategy to promote the importance of the early It also hi

years of childhood. beyondextensive

Web-based marketing is also a strategy used by NCPC.Its web site, smartstart-nc.org, provides a comprehensive Marketii

source of information and news about Smart Start, links they act'

to local Parnerships, and a pass-protected area for special- Local Pa

ized information for local Parnerships to use. techniqtservices

As a result of these combined strategies, there is greater develop,

awareness ofand interest inearly childhood issues and spots an

Smart Start. Even so, Smart Start marketing at the state level but Ernremains unfocused, in large part because Smart Start is so may rec

very difficult to market. It is not a single program or even a the trad

collective set of programs. Marketing Smart Start continues develop

to require a variety of strategies that are focused around spe- translat

cific programs and their benefits for young children. others 1,

Perhaps, the true test of the combined marketing effort isthat Smart Start is now a well-recognized phenomenon in Local P

North Carolina with solid support from the general public, attracts

regardless of party affiliation, age, or other demographics. to imp]differeri

Even so, juggling communication and marketing strategies with ty may

other responsibilities is a hard taskand one that generally falls Smart !

to the overburdened local executive director. Very few Partner- director

ships have resources beyond what can be eked out of their maintaadministrative budgets or pulled from staff and volunteers. ple rerr

childre

Still, Partnerships realize that to increase community sup- establis

port, public awareness is essential. Marketing is a tool to market

LOgAL ,

The communication and marketing strategies used bylocal Partnerships have been extremely creative andresourceful, varying from county to county. Most haverelied on traditional print media to announce new serv-ices or feature a program visit from a state or local dig-

nitary.tourscriticadevelo

report

Granville-Warren Partnership for Children offered windowfans to families who signed up for parenting classes.

Still other Partnerships have used a more personal touch.In Durham, for example, Hope for Kids organizes dozensof volunteers to canvas entire neighborhoods to promotechildhood immunization to families in poor or remote

neighborhoods. At the same time, volunteers use thisdoor-to-door approach to inform these families aboutother local services. Bilingual outreach workers trying toreach Latino children and families now produce theirmaterials in Spanish and post announcements in Mexicangrocery stores and at the monthly flea market in onecounty with a strong Latino population.

Develop a statewide communications effort to keepthe spotlight continuously on the new early child-hood program.The N.C. Partnership's focus on communications andmarketing provides not only inspiration for localPartnerships but technical assistance and guidance.This provides local Partnerships with an opportunity toshare local successes, knowing that such efforts will beshowcased and promoted to statewide audiences.Communication leadership and resources at the top areessential for the long-term survival of any initiative.

Create a statewide public awareness campaign thatcan be implemented and supported locally.While a statewide campaign might be challenging toorganize, it can be much more effective if it serves asthe umbrella for local communication efforts. So putlocal "links"local examples, tag lines for local contacts,etc.into any statewide campaign. At the communitylevel, people want to know where to go to get informa-tion or how to give time or money locally. A campaignthat is locally implemented maximizes resources andconveys a sense of purpose and consistency to the pub-lic. The goal is to ensure that people across the statehave the same general idea about the program.

Marketing is important to establish an identity inthe community.It's important to launch a marketing effort that con-veys both the importance of early childhood and asso-ciates this program with a memorable name, likeSmart Start. Too many programs and activities soundalike; this confuses the public and makes it difficult toorganize public support.

Be creativeuse a variety of strategies to communi-cate about your successes.No single strategy can reach every audience in thecommunity. Printed materialsnewsletters, brochures,fact sheets, and reportsshould be widely disseminat-ed. Also use the public mediaradio, print, and televi-sioninviting the participation of various spokespeo-ple, including service recipients, key leaders, and otherpublic officials. With a growing and changing com-munity, it is important to communicate often and bepersistent.

Share media costs by involving businesses orUnited Ways in developing joint campaigns orpiggyback onto another campaign.When a local business or United Way joins up at thestate or local level, the costs of a media campaign canbe reduced and the campaign itself can be strength-ened for both parties. Piggybacking onto a nationalcampaign or the release of a national report helps toreinforce the message that early childhood is impor-tant.

Focus on children and success to attract communityinterest and support.People gravitate toward young children and positiveassociations of childhood. Since citizens want to makea difference, showing them the real faces of childrenwhose lives have been improved through early child-hood services is one of the most effective communica-tion tools. In addition, its a sure way to attract thepublic media that always want to put a face with ahuman interest story. Focusing on program resultsalso builds confidence.

70

LESSON 8: Marketing is a Must o 63

A STORY FROM BRUNSWICK COUNTY

"First, we wanted to educate ourselves. Second, we

needed to educate the community. And third, we need-

ed to get buy-in from the community. We needed their

resources and they needed to have trust-based services.

We called this strategy our stepping stones for lasting

change," says Lori Bates, Executive Director of the

Brunswick County for Children.

Bates, a former Toastmaster with excellent communica-

tion skills, knew the value of launching a multi-faceted

media campaign to build public support for the

Partnership. One of the fastest growing counties in the

state, Brunswick is in a coastal area and experiences

dramatic population changes on a seasonal basis. While

Local residents number about 60,000, the county popu-

lation balloons to well over 100,000 when summer

tourists arrive. Bates decided that the local press was

the one form of communication she should use con-

stantly. "We were always trying to be the winning horse

and project that image in the community. We celebrat-

ed everything," recalls Bates. Whether it was a new

foundation grant or the election of officers, Bates made

sure the local press had the story.

Rejected in the first two expansion rounds for Smart

Start, Bates and the Board of Directors decided to use

the information they had gathered about the needs of

young children to host the "State of the Child"

Conference. State leaders and local legislators were

invited to this community event, which attracted

people from all over the county. Bates and others

presented "the facts" about the status of children and

the changing demographics of the county. Board

members generated commitment forms among audi-

ence members who volunteered to become active

members of the Partnership. A few attendees even

pledged financial support to get the fledglingPartnership started.

"Everybody was investing in the success of our organi-

zation," says Bates. "Those $5.00 gifts were more valu-

able to our organization than big money. There was a

Lot of community ownership. Whether they gave one

dollar or fifty dollars, everybody felt like they were

stockholders." The Conference has since become an

annual event and a centerpiece of the Partnership's

public awareness efforts.

Bates went on to use this strategy of educating, net-

working, and fundraising at every opportunity. For one

County Commissioner's meeting, for example, she

Launched a postcard campaign with the slogan, "For the

children of Brunswick County, we need the Brunswick

County Partnership for Children." Hundreds of cards

were sent in from all sectors of the community, includ-

ing the churches. When it came time to consider a

funding request from the Partnership, the

Commissioners couldn't refuse it.

Bates says that the most valuable lesson she has

learned is the importance of community buy-in. "When

you ask people for money, they want to give, not just

because they are benefiting but because they're on the

team. It's the home team now."

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

71

What do these lessons tell us about the future ofSmart Start and where it might be headed? We

can look at what we've learned and use our experiences toforecast some of the key challenges ahead for NorthCarolina. We can imagine that other states and commu-nities which have implemented similar early childhoodinitiatives will face similar challenges.

Smart Start's Future

First, the perennial question of "Will Smart Start be con-tinued after Governor Jim Hunt leaves office?" As youmight guess, we certainly think that it will be, althoughthe form might change as state policymakers continue toassess its effectiveness and the costs involved. Smart Starthas been built as a local initiative and it now has roots inall 100 counties of North Carolina. Tens of thousands ofpeople are actively involved in Smart Start, as Board andcommittee members, grantees, recipients of services, andinterested citizens. This bottom-up approach is one ofthe real strengths of Smart Start, and there is clear sup-port for early childhood education throughout the stateand the nation.

The price tag for Smart Start is certainly reasonable andviable when compared to other tax-supported services.Approximately $320 million will be needed to fully fundSmart Start on an annual basis, and nearly three-fourthsof this has already been committed by the state. NorthCarolina will spend about $350 per child this year on

72

Conclusion

Smart Start, a fraction of the more than $5,000 per yearspent on school-age children. We think Smart Start willcontinue to be politically and publicly supported, regard-less of who becomes the next Governor, because there isgrassroots support, the program is producing results, andit is cost-effective.

Other Key Early Childhood Issues

Another important question is "How will Smart Start fitin with other early childhood issues in the state?" We doexpect to see some future evolution of Smart Start thatwill take into consideration other key early childhoodissues. These include:

Fair Market Rates for Child Care: Child careproviders serving low-income children must be paidfair market rates, if the state is to build a quality earlychildhood system. This, however, poses a dilemma.Currently, the state determines market rates for eachcounty by calculating the amount that private, feepaying parents spend and then establishing an averagecost for care in that county. The state recently con-ducted a market rate study based on 1997 data, but itdid not establish new rates because of the expenseinvolved in making these changes. It will take a signifi-cant increase in tax dollars to pay for these improve-ments, so that each county can meet its fair marketrate for child care. So far, additional resources havenot been forthcoming to support better market rates.

65


Another process was also created by the state that willaffect the cost and quality of child care. In the fall of1999, North Carolina began to implement a "FiveStar Rating System" for child care providers that is apoint system keyed to the quality of the center orhome, its compliance track record, and the educationlevel of the teachers. Child care subsidy reimbuise-ments will be based on these ratings under this newFive Star system. However, the state added only mini-mal resources in 1999 to support these improvements.For example, child care centers with a "three star" rat-ing will only receive $17.00 more per subsidized child,hardly enough to improve the quality of the care toreach the next star. Without adequate resources, thestate instead looked to the local Smart Start Partner-ships and through legislation has strongly "encour-aged" each Partnership to fund the Five Star Systemand create other strategies to pick up the costs forimproving quality. North Carolina is now strugglingwith different ways of paying for child care in thehundred different counties. What many believeshould have been a state-funded policy has becomelocal policy. How this will play out over time remainsto be seen.

Child Care Subsidies: There will, perhaps, always bepressures to provide additional child care subsidy fundsfor working parents with young children. As a statethat historically has had one of the highest rates ofworking mothers, North Carolina struggles to ensureadequate child care, particularly for infants and tod-dlers, even with Smart Start. The advent of welfarereform has required thousands of single mothers toenter the work force, yet the child care system is woe-fully inadequate to provide quality child care for thevery youngest children in the state. Under Smart Start,30% of all local funding must be used to support childcare subsidies and still a waiting list remains. WhetherSmart Start and other federal and state sources com-bined will be adequate to meet the total need of work-ing families for child care is still unknown. Mean-while, the state legislature continues to be quite con-cerned about the waiting list for child care servicesbecause it impacts the ability of parents to work.

Universal PreK Programs: There is also an increasinginterest by the public schools to have a universal pub-

lic preschool program for four-year olds, and a bill wasintroduced last year in the N.C. General Assembly tocreate such a program. If this movement is successful,it will have tremendous impact on both the child caresystem as it exists today and on the future direction ofSmart Start. Who will provide pre-kindergarten pro-grams? Will it be the public school system or somecombination of the existing child care system and theschool system? It is too early to predict whether therewill be a groundswell of support for preschool pro-grams of this type and whether policy direction willcome from the state.

School Readiness: Finally, there is a renewed effort,also led by the public schools, to define school readi-ness in universal terms that would be applicable toeach school system. If and when this occurs, it willreverberate throughout the Smart Start communitiesand have major implications for local programming.Smart Start has never defined "school readiness" eventhough its major mission has been to ensure that chil-dren arrive at school healthy and ready to learn."Already questions abound, with the most salient onefor local Partnerships being whether they should berequired to invest in program strategies that lead tothese specific outcomes if specific school readiness out-comes are established at the state level.

Local implementation of Smart Start

What about the local implementation of Smart Start?The original design of Smart Start was built upon theassumption that each county, regardless of populationsize, would have its own local Partnership with a baselinefloor of administrative support. While this administra-tive floor has remained fixed, it is increasingly clearatleast to local Partnershipsthat these resources are inade-quate to support the complex roles and high accountingstandards required of them. And the state legislature isnot likely to support higher administrative costs. Manyconcede that this may well be the biggest design flaw inthe whole Smart Start initiative. It just doesn't makeeconomic sense to support the administration of 100 dif-ferent entities.

As the state increasingly demands greater control andstandardization of the contracting and accounting func-

tions, local Partnerships are being strongly encouraged toconsolidate these functions across several Partnerships.The future of Smart Start will likely see a mix of hybridadministrative approaches and multi-county collabora-tions in all but the very large, metropolitan counties thatcan afford to stand alone. Some Partnerships are alsodebating whether they should expand beyond their origi-nal mission to include older children and serve a broaderpopulation. Still others are working hard to secure otherresources beyond Smart Start to build a viable organiza-tion and ensure diversity of funding sources to supportorganizational development and administrative needs.

On the program side, most Partnerships believe thatthere has already been a tremendous reduction in theamount of local control, or autonomy, that exists indesigning services as the state Partnership has increasedits authority over what types of services can be fundedwith Smart Start dollars. Perhaps this tension betweenlocal autonomy and state requirements was inevitable asthe program grew from 12 Partnerships into a statewideinitiative. It is also a direct result of the change inadministration at the state level and the growth of theN.C. Partnership for Children, which has evolved fromits original role as policy advisor to statewide administra-tor. Regardless of whether one views this as positive ornegative, it is safe to predict that Smart Start is evolvinginto a more homogenous set of child care, child health,and family support activities that will be much moreclosely monitored by the state in the future.

Change is Likely

The relatively short history of Smart Start has beenmarked by constant change, and we can safely predictthat this will continue. For instance, the "Year Five" localPartnerships are just now getting started. Although theyrepresent almost half of the state geographically, they arelocated in some of the least populated and most ruralparts of the state. As a result, they contain less than one-fourth of the total child population.

It is these counties, however, who face the greatest hard-ships brought on by limited resources and daunting eco-nomic challenges. In most cases, their early childhoodinfrastructures are underdeveloped, as are all other parts

Conclusion r 67

of their infrastructures. To meet their special needs, then,the state might need to launch a special Smart Start ini-tiative or reconsider the current funding formula to guar-antee that they have the resources they need to effectivelydeliver comprehensive services for young children andfamilies.

The Future is Now

In many respects, the future of Smart Start is alreadyapparent. In the last five years, Smart Start has trans-formed communities throughout North Carolina. Thereal strength of Smart Start lies at the local level in whichagencies and citizens have come together to solve prob-lems and share their resources. Eighty-one new localPartnerships have been formed to provide leadership andbuild a caring community for young children and theirfamilies. Collaborative efforts exist today among agenciesthat have historically operated only along turf lines.Private resources have been blended with state and federaldollars to extend services to many more children andfamilies than Smart Start could serve alone. Across thestate, people believe that Smart Start is critical to childrenand families, regardless of their age, race, income, or geo-graphic location. In six short years, early childhood edu-cation has become an integral part of the human serviceslandscape of North Carolina.

Smart Start has benefited tens of thousands of youngchildren and families across North Carolina. It is slowlybut surely putting a spotlight on early prevention effortsand the importance of early childhood. Today, there arechildren who have seen a doctor for the first time, chil-dren who are learning to read and play with others, andchildren who have had a Head Start experience. Serviceshave been opened to children with special developmentalneeds and to children of Hispanic migrant workers.Families are more satisfied and productive employeesbecause they have had access to quality, affordable childcare. Parents have had the opportunity to learn how tocare for and nurture their children, and are more confi-dent and capable parents. For those who wonder aboutthe importance and effectiveness of Smart Start, the proofis in these children. The future for young children is cer-tainly brighter because of these quality experiences thatSmart Start has made possible in North Carolina.

74

318111IVAV Ad03 1S3E1

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

ERIC

Title: S I v t 5 t h e & f a r 5 i k i t r n e d f r o m 5 Yetu5 of 'SMART START-

Author(s). C41410\lv% K Km II + /11 i viej--

Corporate Source:

Gaty ail4kaDd Tkili+CetfiVeS ih 1\ferfk Caro ItIA

Publication Date:

Jwne, ?zoo

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the

monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if

reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom

of the page.The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be

affixed to all Level 1 documents affixed to all Level 2A doeuments 'affixed to all Level 2B documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

\e

q"TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

_ C.PNTPR-(ERIC)_

1

Level

Check here for Level 1 release, permittingreproduction and dissemination in microfiche or other

ERIC archival media (e.g., electronic) and paper

41

00

Cs) Signhere,-)please

11"14

copy.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY


2A

Level 2A

Check here for Level 2A release, permittingreproduction and dissemination In microfiche and In

electronic media for ERIC archival collectionsubscribers only

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND. .

DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL INMICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED EY


2B

Level 2B

Check here for Level 2B release, permittingreproduction and dissemination in microfiche only

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box Is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

. . .

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Infoimation Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this documentas indicated abOve. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche 'or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its syStemcontractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Excel)tion is made fornon-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies

to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

Signature:

Organization/Address:C-K (M-0

OI(

ASSOCtieinC.q2( rreeAe-

eS

Printed Name/Position/Title:

CARO LYKI KKO LL , Fresi dankTelephone:gig

E-Mail Address:

'W.' ham 14C. Z770 5 4418

FAXtfict.

Date:

VASPri an')C- .11 (over)

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, pleaseprovide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publiclyavailable, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly morestringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:GK Krvil d Assoc-Wes, Thc.

Address:1'21 Morreeve 'KC Suite 2o5

ILaho", NC z17 447?.to

Price:' 3

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name andaddress:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse: Karen E. Smith, Assistant DirectorERIC/EECEChildren's Research CenterUniversity of Illinois51 Gerty Dr.Champaign, IL 61820-7469

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document beingcontributed) to:

,

EFF-088 (Rev. 2/2000)

ERIC Processing and Reference Facility4483-A Forbes BoulevardLanham, Maryland 20706

Telephone: 301-552-4200Toll Free: 800-799-3742

FAX: 301-552-4700e -mail: [email protected]

WWW: http://ericfac:piccard.csc.com